web site hit counter Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage - Ebooks PDF Online
Hot Best Seller

Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage

Availability: Ready to download

We are witnessing a watershed moment in American cultural history: the sabotaging of family and marriage. Extreme-left radicals have made their arguments and tried different tactics, from the early nineteenth century to the sexual revolution of the 1960s, but at long last they have the vehicle to make it happen: gay marriage. Now, as the legal definition of marriage rapidl We are witnessing a watershed moment in American cultural history: the sabotaging of family and marriage. Extreme-left radicals have made their arguments and tried different tactics, from the early nineteenth century to the sexual revolution of the 1960s, but at long last they have the vehicle to make it happen: gay marriage. Now, as the legal definition of marriage rapidly changes, the floodgates are open, and the fundamental transformation of the American family will take on new speed and new dimensions. Efforts to redefine the family structure have been long at work, and there have been some influential forces on the far left and communist left that cannot and should not be ignored in that process. In Takedown Paul Kengor exposes these origins, starting with Karl Marx, and traces them through the sordid history of people like Margaret Sanger, Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse, and assorted '60s radicals. What were once fringe concepts have become accepted by mainstream thought and are today welcomed by many legislators and judges. Kengor notes how in the not-so-distant past, today's leftists who are attacking traditional marriage would have loudly raised their voices but not caused any real damage. They would have been dismissed with no serious concern as left-wing cranks, crackpot German and Austrian atheistic philosophers and campus agitators. But now, with formal legalization of same-sex marriage afoot, they are getting what they’ve wanted for generations: the literal redefinition of the family. Takedown exposes how gay marriage is serving as a Trojan horse for the far left to secure the final takedown of marriage that it has long wanted, and countless everyday Americans are oblivious to the deeper forces at work. Takedown takes no prisoners and bluntly shows the reader that even Karl Marx and his more anti-marriage comrade Engels would be dumbfounded at the mere thought that modern Americans would gladly join them in their rejection of God's design for natural marriage and the family.


Compare

We are witnessing a watershed moment in American cultural history: the sabotaging of family and marriage. Extreme-left radicals have made their arguments and tried different tactics, from the early nineteenth century to the sexual revolution of the 1960s, but at long last they have the vehicle to make it happen: gay marriage. Now, as the legal definition of marriage rapidl We are witnessing a watershed moment in American cultural history: the sabotaging of family and marriage. Extreme-left radicals have made their arguments and tried different tactics, from the early nineteenth century to the sexual revolution of the 1960s, but at long last they have the vehicle to make it happen: gay marriage. Now, as the legal definition of marriage rapidly changes, the floodgates are open, and the fundamental transformation of the American family will take on new speed and new dimensions. Efforts to redefine the family structure have been long at work, and there have been some influential forces on the far left and communist left that cannot and should not be ignored in that process. In Takedown Paul Kengor exposes these origins, starting with Karl Marx, and traces them through the sordid history of people like Margaret Sanger, Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse, and assorted '60s radicals. What were once fringe concepts have become accepted by mainstream thought and are today welcomed by many legislators and judges. Kengor notes how in the not-so-distant past, today's leftists who are attacking traditional marriage would have loudly raised their voices but not caused any real damage. They would have been dismissed with no serious concern as left-wing cranks, crackpot German and Austrian atheistic philosophers and campus agitators. But now, with formal legalization of same-sex marriage afoot, they are getting what they’ve wanted for generations: the literal redefinition of the family. Takedown exposes how gay marriage is serving as a Trojan horse for the far left to secure the final takedown of marriage that it has long wanted, and countless everyday Americans are oblivious to the deeper forces at work. Takedown takes no prisoners and bluntly shows the reader that even Karl Marx and his more anti-marriage comrade Engels would be dumbfounded at the mere thought that modern Americans would gladly join them in their rejection of God's design for natural marriage and the family.

30 review for Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage

  1. 5 out of 5

    John Hamilton

    I've been puzzled by how gay-marriage advocates call everyone who disagrees with their redefinition of marriage "hate mongers" and "homophobes." Why would I hate or be "scared" of someone else's choice of lifestyle? Why this sudden hostility? And yes, I mean "sudden"— gay marriage was never even heard of until the last 15-20 years. This despite gays being contributing members of society for millennia (presumably). This book answered my bewilderment. It all fits nicely with the larger cultural-Ma I've been puzzled by how gay-marriage advocates call everyone who disagrees with their redefinition of marriage "hate mongers" and "homophobes." Why would I hate or be "scared" of someone else's choice of lifestyle? Why this sudden hostility? And yes, I mean "sudden"— gay marriage was never even heard of until the last 15-20 years. This despite gays being contributing members of society for millennia (presumably). This book answered my bewilderment. It all fits nicely with the larger cultural-Marxist ideology so loved by the starry-eyed, or deeply troubled, academic elites. I, and most others, are simply not aware of it since we don't run in those circles. Words mean more than we think. Names especially. Think of the importance given to names in scripture and the theology of nearly all religions. A same-sex partnership, whatever else you may wish to call it, is not a "marriage" in the traditional sense. Calling it such serves to break down that traditional relationship and the family that results from it. This can be good or bad depending on the tradition, but the family was and is the foundation of every civilization from time immortal, and as such has been the stated enemy of Marx and Engels and their socialist descendants to this day. When the family is destroyed, all else is a cake-walk. An enlightening book.

  2. 5 out of 5

    Jonathan 'Tripp'

    So ALL left are Communists and ALL of them look to ruin marriage. Next time this guy should just say, "Hey, I'm homophobic and xenophobic! Everyone who thinks otherwise is just another piece of shit." That would save everyone time and money. So ALL left are Communists and ALL of them look to ruin marriage. Next time this guy should just say, "Hey, I'm homophobic and xenophobic! Everyone who thinks otherwise is just another piece of shit." That would save everyone time and money.

  3. 4 out of 5

    Gediminas Tumėnas

    Knygoje nagrinėjama komunizmo ideologijos istorija seksualumo, šeimos santykių, santuokos klausimais. Labai aktuali ir savalaikiška knyga, nuimanti širmą nuo gerais ketinimais prisidengusios progresyvistinės politikos ir atskleidžianti jos šaknis, siekiančias dar XIX amžiaus komunistinę ideologiją. Rekomenduoju knygą visiems, kuriems svarbu atskirti grūdus nuo pelų, t. y. tas idėjas ir judėjimus, kurie siekia lygių teisių, tolerancijos, atskirtų grupių pripažinimo bei paramos joms nuo tų politin Knygoje nagrinėjama komunizmo ideologijos istorija seksualumo, šeimos santykių, santuokos klausimais. Labai aktuali ir savalaikiška knyga, nuimanti širmą nuo gerais ketinimais prisidengusios progresyvistinės politikos ir atskleidžianti jos šaknis, siekiančias dar XIX amžiaus komunistinę ideologiją. Rekomenduoju knygą visiems, kuriems svarbu atskirti grūdus nuo pelų, t. y. tas idėjas ir judėjimus, kurie siekia lygių teisių, tolerancijos, atskirtų grupių pripažinimo bei paramos joms nuo tų politinių ar pilietinių sprendimų, kurie strategiškai ir nuosekliai vis dar bando žemėje įkurti neįmanomą utopiją, kurios steigimo bandymai visi baigėsi totalitarizmu (kitaip ir negali būti). Dabartinis progresyvizmas, akivaizdu, jau šiandien, XXIa. antrajame dešimtmetyje, sėkmingai kultivuoja totalitarinius valdymo metodus.

  4. 5 out of 5

    Anna

    What is so shockingly different abut today is that gay marriage is not being advocated on the remotest margins of society by angry, crackpot German and Austrian and French atheistic philosophers in European cafes but by everyday mainstream Americans, by Mr. and Mrs. Main Street. And what they are not only advocating but vigorously and often militantly pushing, to borrow from Marx's language, is the most radical rupture of traditional relations of all--so radical that Marx and his more anti-marri What is so shockingly different abut today is that gay marriage is not being advocated on the remotest margins of society by angry, crackpot German and Austrian and French atheistic philosophers in European cafes but by everyday mainstream Americans, by Mr. and Mrs. Main Street. And what they are not only advocating but vigorously and often militantly pushing, to borrow from Marx's language, is the most radical rupture of traditional relations of all--so radical that Marx and his more anti-marriage comrade Engels would be dumbfounded at the mere thought of where America and the West stand today."

  5. 4 out of 5

    Mykolas Lozoraitis

    I liked how the author used a matter of fact manner and light style mixture to tell how for more than a century and a half we see an attempt to achieve the goal set by the creators of the theory of „scientific communism". The goal that was precisely summed up in one sentence of manifesto - to destroy the natural family. No matter how vague the vision of a bright communist future proclaimed by this theory was, the primary and long-term goal of the revolution was extremely clear and specific, and I liked how the author used a matter of fact manner and light style mixture to tell how for more than a century and a half we see an attempt to achieve the goal set by the creators of the theory of „scientific communism". The goal that was precisely summed up in one sentence of manifesto - to destroy the natural family. No matter how vague the vision of a bright communist future proclaimed by this theory was, the primary and long-term goal of the revolution was extremely clear and specific, and most importantly, it was immediately implemented purposefully and effectively. The Marxist theory of the communist revolution, by its very nature, first and foremost because of its ultimate goal, is a program of total destruction of the „Old World“ - the civilization created and nurtured by humanity for millennia, its institutes and forms. All that our civilization inherited from the past must be destroyed to its foundation, to disappear irreversibly into oblivion as prehistory of the „true” history of mankind - in order for a new world to emerge in the emptiness „out of nothing”. The natural or, according to the Marxist classics, the bourgeois family has always been one of the mainstays of that civilization. Therefore, it inevitably had to become one of the first and most important targets of the communist revolution. It‘s obvious that the first attempts to abolish it were made in the country of the „liberated proletariat" - Russia, occupied by the Leninist Bolshevik group. However, today this fact is almost erased from the historical memory of the people of the Western world. It was at this stage in the history of the world, and especially Russia, a fadingly small section of society, but hesitantly proclaimed to be the progressive avant-garde of mankind and its leaders, a handful of revolutionaries set out a goal to tear down the „Old World" and fundamentally reshape society. A crucial part of its revolutionary transformation and struggle for the New World became sexual revolution. It had to destroy the family as mechanism that enslaves the person, therefore a relic of the old society. It was seeked to free the New Man of the future from the norms of bourgeois morality that hinder and suppress his „creative self-expression." It should be noted that it wasn‘t „civilized" and „advanced" Europe or the US where sexual revolution took place for the first time - it took place in „uncivilized" and „backward" Russia. These ambitions did not come true only because of the counter-revolution carried out by Stalin's will in the 1930s, which put an end to the frenzy of liberated and uncontrollable sexuality. Therefor, looking from a historical point of view it‘s obvious that in today‘s Western world, the revolutionary program of sexual liberation of mankind, launched by Lenin's Bolsheviks, is in fact being continued and attempted to be implemented in a consistent and complete manner. However, the very vision of such liberation was by no means Russian, but purely Western invention. Russia was only a landfill of a giant and reckless anthropological and social experiment, in which the ideas of Marxist communism were practically tried and tested. The soon to be disastrous results of such a revolution were so catastrophic that even the leadership of the Soviet Union, which was fanatically loyal to the ideology of communism, was forced to quietly renounce „principles" against their own will and urgently end a decade long but uncontrollable orgy of instincts and sexual liberation. In Europe itself, similar experiments with the family were also carried out, but happened in very fringe of society and was practiced only by small groups of revolutionaries, who urged to free themselves from the chains of „outdated morality". They were left only jealous of the achievements of sexual revolution in communist Russia, which was and still are praised not only in publications that spread communist ideas, but also in the writings of progressive authors. They were left to only patiently wait when a similar experiment in the West will occur since the majority of European societies insisted on the requirements of the bourgeois concept of the family and the „repressive" Christian morality based on its ideal and values. The hour of sexual revolution in West struck only in the 1970s and the main ideological source that inspired it was H. Marcuse‘s theory that was „corrected" and „deepened" of K. Marx's theory of the total communist revolution. The essence of all additions and clarifications of the old theory is formed and expressed by one key idea. According to Marcuse, Marx's great and fateful mistake was that he greatly overestimated the possibilities and role of the proletariat as the most advanced class of society and the revolutionary avant-garde of mankind. The proletariat is incapable of being the avant-garde of society and the guide of mankind to the communist future because it fails to break free from the darkness and superstitions of old society. Therefore, it doesn‘t get rid of outdated moral norms and family image in any way. Thus, the role of the avant-garde in the struggle for the liberation of humanity must be taken over by a new revolutionary force - various diverse groups of society. The role of the flag bearer of this struggle in the theory was devoted to sexual minorities. At the same time, the experience and mistakes of the Russian experiment were taken into account in this theory. One of the most important insights of Marcuse and his followers was that such a revolution could not be done „from above" by hastily and harshly applying New World's idea for a society that doesn‘t want it. It was understood that in order to finally implement the great idea of Marx and turn his utopian vision of the New World into reality, it was necessary to quietly and gradually change the cultural and moral attitudes of a „liberated“ society and transform its members' consciousness to „deconstruct" the core institution of Western civilization and family mostly. Therefor very subtle ideological methods have been used for this purpose. Thus the second wave of sexual revolution emerged in the West, which soon surpassed the Soviet Leninist predecessor in its radicality and scale. The theoretical basis and source of inspiration for this revolution was the ideology of genderism - a purely „postmodern” mix and patchwork of ideas of Marcuse, neo-Marxist communism and leftist liberalism. The new tactics have proven to be extremely effective - the scale and results of expanding and accelerating revolution are astounding. The experiment of the Russian communist sexual revolution with even greater ambition and fervor is repeated throughout the democratic Western world. The very communist idea of revolutionary transformation of the world by its nature and intention is like a two-faced Janus. One of its faces looks to the future, the other to the past. The horizon to the future is drowning in the fog of uncertainty, but the eyes of Janus' face facing the past radiate a determination to destroy everything that comes into its sight. The preachers of communist utopia have always vaguely imagined what the earthly paradise they promise would actually be. They constantly disagree on this, but they are united in their assessment of the past - they all agree that it must be erased with no trace. Not only that, it must be erased from human memory as a dark prehistory permeated by superstitions and stereotypes. Even though what exactly such future holds is not clear even to such theory greatest authorities. However, the practical goal deriving from the approach, proclaimed from this theory is somewhat wonderful and identifiable route. Even poetically and passionately: „let's dismantle the old world from its very foundations" – these are the words of „International“ anthem where the international proletariat, openly describe this goal. The Marxist communist revolution idea stood out to be radical and total. Its purpose has never been and is not to liberate man only from only economic, social or political oppression. To liberate man completely first of all means to liberate him from himself - from the nature of the Old Man, and at the same time from all the norms of morality and conduct. Such a revolution must be a complete erase of the Old Man - liberation from the existing and known form of man, which must free the way for an absolutely „free" human self-creation. And the goal and the end result of the revolution is superhuman, which is different and hard to imagine. It will emerge from the path of „free self-creation", a species of transcendental beings that must replace and take the place of present-day humanity. The very concept of the superhuman itself is often associated with the radically anti-scientific, antihuman, and fundamentally insane idea of „racial superiority,” which was one of the most important cornerstones of German National Socialist ideology. However, it is much less known and less frequently said that the image of the superhuman was one of the most important sources of inspiration for the Russian Bolsheviks as well. In the first decade after their coup, it was inevitable to openly and proudly announce that the creation of a New Communist Man would be nothing but a superhuman. As if on purpose - and this is hardly a coincidence - the period of loud talk about the superhuman is also the period of the greatest rise of the sexual revolution in Soviet Russia. The word superhuman disappeared from public use only when the world's first sexual revolution ended in the country with the will and lightning-fast decision of the communist USSR leadership, sex itself officially „disappeared" for a several decades. Thus, the vision of the superhuman is not a foreign body of the theory of Marxist communism – this is its cornerstone, the ideological nucleus and the intellectual and normative core. This means that already in the XIX century the Marxist theory of the communist revolution in its deepest essence, was from the very beginning a project not only of social but also of anthropological engineering. It was theoretically conceived and practically intended to fundamentally change man and his nature. All modern revolutions have been and continue to be proclaimed and carried out in the name of „humanism" and the liberation and exaltation of man. However, in reality and practice, all of them turned into a derogation and humiliation, which had never been seen before in the history of the world - a mockery of his mind and moral dignity. Not only that, the ideological and propaganda like praise of man, the exaltation of his greatness have theoretically and practically denied the very idea of man and, more importantly, a united humanity. Such a possibility lies in the very preconditions of „humanistic" thinking. The supposedly humanistic vision of the New Man makes a division of all mankind that was not even imagined in any previous time. With the acceleration of modernity and with the creation of a New Man, the Old Man was increasingly recklessly underestimated. From the perspective of the creation of the New Man, the Old Man is completely worthless or, at best becomes an inferior „human material" from which the „better" man of the future must be derived. He is seen as an „atavistic" being - an ancestor of the past without a future and the right to exist. According to the modern logic of the production of the New Man, all people living on earth are doomed to be „better" or „inferior" and more strictly and more precisely, „appropriate" and „inappropriate" human raw materials. At the same time, another division is just as inevitable: in the process, destiny has pre-assigned the role of human „producers" and others only of „products". This division of roles is determined by only one mysterious characteristic of a person, which guarantees his infinite advantage over other people. That quality is commonly referred to as „progress“ Thus, the relentless destiny has arranged the world to be „open" and „progressive". The opposite to such is „narrow minded“ people that are attaching to the past, therefor slowing down the noble march of progress, people that are irreparable and are „lagging behind“. Their differences are not quantitative (the degree of characteristics and abilities inherent in all people), but qualitative - namely, of nature, and therefore anthropological, or more precisely, of species differences. They are so enormous that it becomes impossible to preserve even the image of a united humanity. The difference between the future progressive New and the outdated retrograde Old Man can only be perceived and thought as a biological and anthropological difference between two completely separate and distinct species of beings. In fact, the distinction between the Old and the New Man is based on the fundamental assumption that the abyss between these two varieties of man is as insurmountable or even wider than the gap between the commonly perceived man and, say, the gorilla. Therefore, sooner or later, a secret long hidden in the mantle of „humanistic" rhetoric had to be revealed - it had to be said that the New Man's name was no longer suitable for the New Man at all. The search for the right name took a long time until the word that actually took place was finally coined. Superman - this is the almost perfectly picturesque and precise name of the New Man. From the very beginning, the logic of destruction lay in the very idea of the superhuman. It simply leaves no room for man, who in Western culture - religion, philosophy, art was perceived as an „intermediate" being situated between two ideal poles of presence. God and the animal - this is how both ends of this chain were named, symbolically limiting and delineating the space of possibilities for man's presence in the world. The crucial point is that although people are very diverse and stand on different stages of the chain of perfection, they are all human beings, members of universal humanity and precisely because they are only scattered at different points in the same space. The vision of the superhuman is the most radical denial of the idea of man and united humanity precisely because it destroys this space of common human existence and even the theoretical possibility of the existence of such space. With the invention of the superhuman, man himself can no longer exist, because he simply has no place in the field of life of human-looking beings. The opposite of a superhuman being can only be some infinitely small and contemptible creature with an external human form - a prehuman. The huge gap between theory and practice is a long-observed feature of modern revolutions. Theoretical humanism and the exaltation of man in practice end in the humiliation of man and even the complete underestimation of his life.

  6. 4 out of 5

    Jill

    Great historical look at how we got to our cultural society today. Unfortunately tolerance for liberals and progressives is only for anyone who agrees with their views. Anyone who disagrees with their views is "intolerant" For Progressives, their ideas of rights, especially which rights they see superior to others at any given time or period, is always changing. They have no hierarchy of rights - the hierarchy is always changing. And today the right to religious freedom is at the bottom. Great historical look at how we got to our cultural society today. Unfortunately tolerance for liberals and progressives is only for anyone who agrees with their views. Anyone who disagrees with their views is "intolerant" For Progressives, their ideas of rights, especially which rights they see superior to others at any given time or period, is always changing. They have no hierarchy of rights - the hierarchy is always changing. And today the right to religious freedom is at the bottom.

  7. 4 out of 5

    Ross Peot

    As American's we seem to be to busy in our lives, to care about things beyond our inner circles; Most important, what has and is happening to our country. As a veteran I took an oath when I joined the service that I would protect and defend our country against both foreign and domestic enemies. Similar of that of Congress and the President. Hmmmmm. One might ask what is this domestic enemy I'm talking about? It is those who are trying to destroy what our Constitution and Bill of Rights is all ab As American's we seem to be to busy in our lives, to care about things beyond our inner circles; Most important, what has and is happening to our country. As a veteran I took an oath when I joined the service that I would protect and defend our country against both foreign and domestic enemies. Similar of that of Congress and the President. Hmmmmm. One might ask what is this domestic enemy I'm talking about? It is those who are trying to destroy what our Constitution and Bill of Rights is all about; "Our way of Life." Let me start by saying, and I would suggest that those who read this book also read, "Original Intent" by David Barton and also Slouching Toward Gomorrah by Robert H. Bork. Maybe read those first. In Barton's book there is a reference from Noah Webster and he said to his students: "When it comes time for you to exercise your right to vote, you are commanded by God to VOTE for GOD FEARING MEN." Now of course it would include women. I grew up during the era in which a lot of this book covers, yet, in our schools we were being taught not much of anything of the subject matter in this book. As I grew older, I was not one for reading and pretty much took what I was hearing on the TV, radio and from others as face value. I started taking up reading in 2001 prior to 9/11 and after that I became more concerned as to what was going on. I read the Bible for starters, Original Intent and other writings on faith and current events. It is really beyond my comprehension on how the infiltration of garbage/filth ever was introduced into our country much less our universities and colleges. "I would ask, "who was guarding the fort and who's guarding it today? We heard of communism in school but what did we really learn about it other than it wasn't good and it was our enemy. I believe our most important asset as a country is our people. However, when you go back to Websters instruction, I would ask you, "How can we vote for God fearing men and women if we don't fear him ourself? That folks is where the problem lies with all our issues. Just as 9/11, we came together as a people, momentarily. A few years later, everything's forgotten. That of course was a foreign enemy. But getting back to this domestic enemy. How can a once so great a country be so split? Is half right and half wrong? And, what would you base it on? This book is a great start, and just as those in the powers to be let garbage flow into our schools, let's get some meaningful coverage on the right things in life. For starts getting rid of tenure at universities and colleges would be a great start.

  8. 5 out of 5

    Mark Greathouse

    Destroying the family is key to Marx's Communist Manifesto. Kengor's book describes how this is happening today in America. Destroying the family is key to Marx's Communist Manifesto. Kengor's book describes how this is happening today in America.

  9. 5 out of 5

    Nancy Bussey

    "Takedown" has opened my eyes to the feminist movement that I tried to be part in the 80's. I'm glad that I read this book which was recommended by a friend. "Takedown" has opened my eyes to the feminist movement that I tried to be part in the 80's. I'm glad that I read this book which was recommended by a friend.

  10. 5 out of 5

    Aaron Slack

    Written from a Roman Catholic/Natural Law perspective, but well worth reading.

  11. 5 out of 5

    Carol Caldwell

    One of the most informative books on the state of America I have ever read. Loved the history and facts on individuals over the last century.

  12. 5 out of 5

    Gini

  13. 4 out of 5

    Artem Agushin

  14. 5 out of 5

    John

  15. 5 out of 5

    Jennifer Jacobs

  16. 5 out of 5

    Callen Wilhelm

  17. 4 out of 5

    John C. Hanssen

  18. 4 out of 5

    Colin Meade

  19. 5 out of 5

    Bob Fries

  20. 4 out of 5

    Jerry

  21. 4 out of 5

    Edvin Borm

  22. 5 out of 5

    edith luca

  23. 4 out of 5

    Chang Geon Chung

  24. 5 out of 5

    Susan

  25. 5 out of 5

    "WE"

  26. 4 out of 5

    Tomas Lukošiūnas

  27. 5 out of 5

    Gustavo Gomez, Ph.D.

  28. 4 out of 5

    Brenda

  29. 4 out of 5

    Barry Nishizawa

  30. 5 out of 5

    Angela

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.