In the 21st century among the chaos of the new secular morality of equality, diversity and tolerance, the world’s civilisations and its leaders have forgotten the meaning of being human, lost the blueprint of how to protect the humane in humanity, and failed to create a life space for human flourishing that includes virtues such as Goodness, Beauty and Truth. The main reasons for this disorder and the degradation of civil society are not the dysfunctional symptoms of violence, poverty, income inequality, health care and climate change that have become the idolatry of the United Nations, Western socialist governments, global elites, and their misguided civil society institutions. At the root of the problem is the neglect and destruction of the natural family, the fundamental and only sustainable unit of society. Once the family is devalued, humanity is devalued – the Creator and Creation are no longer worshipped or sacred. And once we can no longer honour the sanctity and dignity of all human life from conception to natural death, can we really expect the human beings in the world to live by the Golden Rule (“Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you”)? Where can we find the solutions to restore the natural family and address the root causes of today’s problems of humanity – violence, poverty, illness, greed and environmental degradation?

Contrary to popular opinion, science, reason and faith all converge to explain the anthropological foundations for the family and its utmost importance for society. In the words of author Dr Allan Carlson, founder of the World Congress of Families: “Faith and family are really two sides of the same coin”. Indeed, family is the only institution of civil society, even predating laws and governments, that can ensure that the virtues, purpose and significance found in being human are passed on to the next generations. As the British philosopher G. K. Chesterton explained in the early 20th century: “This triangle of truisms, father, mother, and child cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy civilisations which disregard it.”1 Indeed, we need more homes in the world with mothers, fathers and children.


The worldwide goals of humanity – freedom, justice and peace for all – are mortally threatened in this uncertain time of moral and social disorder. This civilisational disorder and contradiction have been brought on by multiple revolutions against Faith, Reason and now Science itself – what it means to be human, what it means to be man and woman.2 These mortal threats to humanity arise not from poverty, debt, unemployment or the global financial crisis, but from the attacks and continued assault on the “natural family”.

You cannot affirm or promote something that you are unwilling to define, hence the need to explain the term “natural family”. The meaning of “natural family” was defined by a multi-faith working group representing five continents for the World Congress of Families, crafted in May 1998, in a second century B.C. room in the ancient city of Rome. Their definition is supported both by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948) and by the findings of social science. “The natural family is the fundamental social unit, inscribed in human nature, and centred around the voluntary union of a man and a woman in a lifelong covenant of marriage for the purposes of:

• satisfying the longings of the human heart to give and receive love;

• welcoming and ensuring the full physical and emotional development of children;

• sharing a home that serves as the centre for social, educational, economic and spiritual life;

• building strong bonds among the generations to pass on a way of life that has transcendent meaning;

• extending a hand of compassion to individuals and households whose circumstances fall short of these ideals.”

The “natural family” in many parts of the world is no longer the dominant family philosophy or structure. The last two generations of children in the world have been born into a globalised culture of self-indulgence, consumerism and sexual fulfilment – a culture embracing abortion and death. More than all the generations before, these children have known the divorce of parents and have lived too often in places without fathers or mothers or brothers or sisters or even cousins. These children have been taught to deny their destinies as young women and men. They have been forced to read books that mock marriage, motherhood and fatherhood. Persons who should have protected these children – teachers, judges, public officials – often left them as prey to moral and sexual predators. Many of them are in fact the victims of a kind of cultural rape – The Sexual Revolution: seduced into early sexual acts, and then pushed into abortion, sterility, confusion, depression and suicide. True happiness and real freedom come from the power of humans to engage in “the pursuit of happiness” which the American founders properly understood to mean “domestic happiness”, the real joys of marriage and home life and family. The world’s civilisations have always depended on the natural family as the fundamental social unit to exercise and guarantee these most basic human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) describes it succinctly in its preamble: “… Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.3

During the American Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, Dr Martin Luther King, Jr embraced these goals of humanity in his famous “I Have A Dream” speech. As he declared in Washington, DC: “In a sense we have come to our nation’s capital to cash a cheque. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Unfortunately, at the same time that new civil rights were being granted to Blacks, the secular culture was attacking their faith, families and new-found civil freedoms with increasing divorce, promiscuity and out-of-wedlock births.

As part of the King family legacy, Dr Alveda King (niece of Martin Luther King, Jr) now speaks to crowds about the married-parent, natural family as a necessary component to achieve the American dream for African-Americans and for all of God’s people. As my friend Alveda testifies: “I know firsthand the importance of a strong family in overcoming difficulties; as a child I was jailed, my house was bombed, and my daddy and uncle were killed in the Civil Rights Movement of this great nation. If it had not been for the safety and security provided by my father and mother, we their children would have been severely if not irreparably traumatised.”

Opponents of the natural family continue today to push a Cultural Marxism of special rights and equality that ensures the destruction of natural marriage, family and faith. Today, Hungary continues to be a battleground for these anti-family forces as it has for many decades. Thomas Molnar, the great Hungarian philosopher, describes the process of modern-day cultural attacks on family and religious worship this way: “Religious worship and practice are not frontally attacked, they are ridiculed as old-fashioned, anti-scientific, socially and economically counterproductive. In the midst of youth-cult, it is pointed out that only old people mouth these outmoded slogans and superstitions. The adolescent with religious background or convictions is doubly, triply embarrassed and isolated. Older people with religion are persecuted as suspects, rebellious souls, bad patriots, saboteurs of socialist construction.”4 Such words from Molnar echo the efforts of the Hungarian Communist and Marxist philosopher, György Lukács, who confidently pushed for and predicted the demise of family, Church, and God among the ruling elites and intellectuals to focus on individualism and secular humanism. Lukács began his work to undermine the natural family in 1919, when he became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Béla Kun Communist government in Hungary. He immediately set plans in motion to de-Christianise Hungary, reasoning that if Christian sexual ethics could be undermined among children, then both the hated natural family and the Church would be crippled. Lukács launched a radical sex education programme in the Hungarian schools. Sex lectures were organised and literature handed out which graphically instructed youth in free love (promiscuity) and sexual intercourse while simultaneously encouraging them to reject monogamy, Christian moral ethics, and parental and church authority. All of this was accompanied by a reign of cultural terror perpetrated against priests, parents and dissenters. Though his position as Deputy Commissar for Culture would not last even 12 months, by 1949, Lukács continued along the same principles during the post-1948 Communist regime.

From their religious faith, to the bond of marriage, to the birth of children, to the true democracy of free homes, more and more families show weaknesses and disorders, worldwide. There are growing numbers of young adults rejecting the fullness and joy of marriage, instead choosing cheap substitutes or standing alone, where they are easy prey for the Cultural Marxist or the totalitarian state or extremist ideologies. The worldwide marriage rate has fallen in developed countries by an average of 36 per cent. Too many children are born out of wedlock, ending up as wards of the state. More than 40 per cent of children in developed countries are now born into single-parent households. Too few children are born inside married-couple homes, leading to the decline in birth rate and population in every developed nation on earth. In summary, for the first time in global history, most modern nations are a society of mostly single, non-family households instead of married-parent households with children. As a result, the financial, physical and emotional health of children has become endangered in every post-modern civilisation that has abandoned this foundation of marriage and family and adopted the model promoted by the Cultural Marxists.


What does science show us about the anthropological foundations of family, its history, and its importance to society? Modern anthropology has found that family and marriage are unchanging institutions, universal in their basic elements and common to all humanity. As Edward Westermarck explained a century ago: “Among the lowest savages, as well as the most civilised races of men, we find the family consisting of parents and children, and the father as its protector.” Marriage bound this family system together, uniting “a regulated sexual relation” with “economic obligations”. According to Westermarck, special maternal, paternal and marital instincts all existed, each rooted in human nature. As he explained, “the institution of marriage … has developed out of a primeval habit”.5

Certainly there were differences in the marriage systems of distinct human cultures. Nevertheless, the fundamental marriage bond has not changed throughout civilised human history. As anthropologist George Murdock wrote in his great 1949 survey of human cultures: “The nuclear family is a universal human social grouping.” He added that “all known human societies have developed specialisation and cooperation between the sexes roughly along this biologically determined line of cleavage”. Murdock emphasised that “marriage exists only when the economic and the sexual are united into one relationship, and this combination only occurs in marriage. Marriage, thus defined, is found in every known human society.” His work pointed to marriage as natural, necessary and unchanging.6

In summary throughout the history of civilisations, humans have been defined by heterosexual monogamy involving long-term pair bonding (that is, marriage in a mother-father-child household) and the special linkage of the reproductive and the economic, a linkage in which two become one flesh. According to the scientists, the evolution of marriage occurred only once, at the beginning when “to be human” came to mean “to be marital”. Other cultural variations surrounding marriage are simply details. Any “change” is the mark of cultural strengthening or weakening around a constant human model.


While the history of human development and civilisation demonstrates the importance of family and marriage, modern philosophers, neo-liberal socialists, sexual radicals and post-modern secularists have largely succeeded in promoting schools of thought since the French Revolution that marginalise and weaken the family and its value to society. Ironically, one of the first of the dissenters to these modern ideas was a French scholar, the sociologist Frédéric Le Play in the 1870s.7

Le Play argued that human behaviour did not follow the theoretical schemes of his liberal and socialist contemporaries. Rather, he identified and sought to explain the close relation between what he called “la famille souche”– or the stem family – and historical examples of a stable, creative prosperity. This stem family, he insisted, was something more than the nuclear dyad of husband and wife, although this pair bond surely lay at its core. The stem family also embraced extended kin as meaningful, and often guiding, forces in human development. Rather than a historical curiosity, Le Play claimed to find the stem family recurring in all creative periods of human history. He found it among the Jews, the ancient Greeks, the pre-Imperial Romans, and – until recently – most of the European peoples. The stem family, he argued, combined a sense of community with opportunity for individual expression, thus avoiding the stifling oppression of the rigid patriarchal family and the egoistic atomism of the modern liberal system. The family is the true “cell of society” and the source of stability, progress and authentic liberty.

Three twentieth-century American sociologists based their efforts on the legacy of Le Play: Carle Zimmerman, Pitirim Sorokin and Robert Nisbet. Zimmerman, professor of sociology at Harvard University and the founder of a distinctive American rural sociology, wrote Family and Civilisation, which traced the course of family structures throughout the globe and across the millennia. In his classic text, Principles of Rural-Urban Sociology, Zimmerman followed the modern cultural crisis back to the decay of a vital rural society resting on the family.8

In Zimmerman’s view, the family farm – defined as “an organisation of agriculture in which home, community, business, land and domestic family are institutionalised into a living unit which seeks to perpetuate itself over many generations” – constituted the critical source of social renewal, revitalising cities that were incapable of self-renewal, either biologically or in virtue.

In describing the prospects for family reconstruction, Zimmerman also embraced Le Play’s concept of the stem family, renaming it the domestic family. Zimmerman’s other great book, Family and Society, analysed in depth “a simple but relatively prosperous family” living in the American heartland.9 This family “has sufficient food, clothing, and shelter for all basic needs”, although its members “have little money [as judged] from our commercial standards and purchase few goods”. It is “strongly familistic”, he continued, and “highly integrated”. The family members “observe local customs rigidly. The home and the hearth are the centre of their familistic enterprises.” Powerful moral and religious codes govern this family form, reinforcing “regular habits of work”, obedience to parents and thrift. None of the family members are “a burden on the relief funds of the county, state or federal agencies. On the contrary, the family stands ready to help its absent members.” Above all, Zimmerman explains, the domestic-type family is an educational entity: “The family hearth is supplemented by the work of the school, so that the education of the child remains home-centred.”

Zimmerman insisted that this domestic family model was not an expression of a dying or transitional past. Rather, the whole body of his work sought to show that it was a pattern of life recurring throughout time and across the globe. Indeed, he insisted that the domestic-type family was, in practice, a viable option for any age, since it provided a true harmony with the realities of human nature. A domestic-family system develops, Zimmerman said, “among all people who combine the benefits of agriculture, industry and settled life with the common- sense idea of defending their private life from the domination of legislators, from the invasion of bureaucrats, and from the exaggerations of the manufacturing regime”. Progress and harmony would only be won, he concluded, by recognising and reinforcing the domestic-type family as the cell of society.

Zimmerman’s colleague in Harvard’s sociology department during the 1930s and 1940s was Pitirim Sorokin, born and educated in Russia and expelled by the Bolsheviks in 1921. Like Zimmerman, Sorokin was not content with examining certain small facets of human social behaviour. Rather, he sought to synthesise grand changes over time. He described the evolution of human civilisations from what he called “ideational”, “idealistic” and “integral” forms to the “sensate” phase, each shift or “transmutation of values” accompanied by great and sometimes terrible crises.10

Sorokin also shared with Zimmerman a debt to Frédéric Le Play, accepting his concept of the stem family as the most stable, creative and natural social form. In his best and most accessible book, The Crisis of Our Age, Sorokin emphasised the linkage of mounting social turmoil to the shrinkage of family size and the atrophy of family functions. Above all, he identified the family’s surrender of the educational function as the sign of impending doom: “In the past the family was the foremost educational agency for the young. Some hundred years ago it was well-nigh the sole educator for a vast proportion of the younger generation. At the present time its educational functions have shrunk enormously … In these respects the family has forfeited the greater part of its former prerogatives.”

To this list of abandoned functions, Sorokin added others: “[The family] is less and less a religious agency, where … its place is taken either by nothing or by Sunday schools and similar institutions. Formerly the family supplied most of the means of subsistence for its members. At the present time this function, too, is enormously reduced: hundreds of other agencies, including the state and philanthropic institutions, perform it. Other economic functions of the family have likewise either dwindled or disappeared … So it is also with recreational functions. Formerly the family circle took care of these. Now we go to the movies, theatres, night clubs, and the like, instead of ‘wasting our time at home’. Formerly the family was the principal agency for mitigating one’s psychosocial isolation and loneliness. Now families are small, and their members are soon scattered … The result is that the family home turns into a mere ‘overnight parking place’.”

Sorokin was fully aware, though, that this structure could not stand. The family’s loss of meaningful tasks, the move from a “domestic family” structure toward an atomised “sensate” structure would result in social decay, mounting crime, declining fertility, ever poorer health, and mounting state coercion merely to hold the crumbling edifice together. He concluded in the early 1940s that the Western world had already entered an “extraordinary” crisis, as a corrupt late “sensate culture” gave way to disorder, immorality and confusion. The only feasible course was to replace “the withered [and sterile] root of sensate culture” by a new cultural order. As he put it: “A transformation of the forms of social relationship, by replacing the present compulsory and contractual relationships with purer and more godly familistic relationships, is the order of the day. … Not only are they the noblest of all relationships, but under the circumstances there is no way out of the present triumph of barbarian force but through the realm of familistic relationships.” The remedy would be difficult, he acknowledged, but it was the only hope for salvaging life from the darkness.

The third great American sociologist in this tradition is Robert Nisbet, best known as the author of The Quest for Community and The Twilight of Authority.11 In the latter volume, published in 1975, Nisbet affirms Le Play’s emphasis on the strength of the kinship principle as the key determinant of “every great age, and every great people”. “We can”, Nisbet says, “use the family as an almost infallible touchstone of the material and cultural prosperity of a people. When it is strong, closely linked with private property, treated as the essential context of education in society, and its sanctity recognised by law and custom, the probability is extremely high that we shall find the rest of the social order characterised by that subtle but puissant fusion of stability and individual mobility which is the hallmark of great ages.” According to Nisbet, the key qualities undergirding family authority have been duty, honour, obligation, mutual aid and protection, not the “companionship” so emphasised by liberal modernists. Nisbet joins his predecessors in stressing the overriding importance of reintegrating education into a familial framework. He notes that great peoples, resting on strong families, have existed in the past in the total absence of institutions such as the Western world’s state schools and colleges. On the other hand, he continues, “we have not yet seen a great people or a great age of history resting on the school or college to the exclusion of those ties and motivations which are inseparable from kinship”.

Drawing on the intellectual tradition founded by Le Play, Nisbet concludes with a passage of profound importance for us today. “It should be obvious”, he says, “that family, not the individual, is the real molecule of society, the key link of the social chain of being. It is inconceivable to me that either intellectual growth or social order or the roots of liberty can possibly be maintained among a people unless the kinship tie is strong and has both functional significance and symbolic authority.” In this summation, Nisbet is altogether correct. The family, when functioning as the cell of society, delivers all that is good, precious and necessary to life as human beings. Through the appropriately labelled “conjugal act”, the family is the source of new biological life – children springing up within the matrix of responsible love and care as part of a kinship community and able to grow into stable and productive participants in community life.

Understood in that way, the family also humanises the incentives and pressures of the modern industrial economy. The family, we must understand, is the primal economic community, where exchanges properly occur on the basis of altruism, charity and compassion, where the pure socialist vision – “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need” – actually works. At the same time, human beings do have an instinct to innovate and to trade, barter and specialise in tasks, which serves as a vehicle for economic growth and the creation of wealth.

The family, rightly conceived, exists as the critical and only successful boundary between these two economies. It defends the small altruistic economy of the household and kin group from the misapplication of competition and individualism to familial bonds. At the same time, it defends the “market economy” by resisting the misapplication of altruistic socialism on a scale where compassion cannot work because judgements of individual need and character cannot be made. The family, when properly constructed and protected, allows us to have both economic growth and social stability, both efficiency and charity, both competition and compassion, both wealth and altruism.

At the same time, the family is the foe of all ideologies, those “-isms” or utopian visions at war with human nature: liberalism; Marxism; fascism; feminism; Nazism; and aggressive nationalism. Claiming, through the biological roots of the order of creation, a first loyalty from individuals, the family denies the claims of every “total” ideological system. This explains, in turn, the hostility these ideologies exhibit toward the family. In the words of G. K. Chesterton: “This small unit is the principal foe of every ideologue, every fanatic out to construct and control ‘a new humanity’”. In every case, ambitious ideologues must first destroy family sentiment and family loyalties, inspiring the innumerable political assaults the family unit has experienced since the French Revolution unleashed these evils, fully armed, on human life.


In the 21st century among the chaos of secular humanism, the new morality, and post-modern thought, the world’s civilisations and its leaders have largely forgotten the meaning of being part of the human family and the importance of “Permanent Things” in life that make us human and give us meaning in a healthy society.12 In the words of Russell Kirk: “There are certain permanent things in society: the health of the family, inherited political institutions that insure a measure of order and justice and freedom, a life of diversity and independence, a life marked by widespread possession of private property”.

Historically, Hungary has been a frequent victim of the latest ideologues, utopians and totalitarians attempting to undermine the “Permanent Things” and using Communism, Cultural Marxism, Industrialism, and now post-modern Globalist ideologies to destroy the natural family. The current threats to the family arising globally from Cultural Marxism were started when Communist leader and philosopher György Lukács implemented many of these neo-Marxist ideas in Hungary. Together with fellow Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci, Lukács promoted an ideology that advocated a cultural revolution so as to implement a Marxist takeover of a country without resorting to a political or military takeover. Gramsci articulated in 1915 what Lukács began in Hungary: “Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. … In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.” What Marx, Gramsci and Lukács began, continues around the world under new names such as “The Open Society” and various other disguised Cultural Marxist organisations funded by Hungarian-born billionaire George Soros. Under the guise of human rights and democracy, Soros invests millions of dollars to support drug legalisation, population control, abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage by infiltrating schools, universities, churches and the media to radically transform society into his vision of utopia, “The Open Society”. Ironically the liberty, human rights, free society and Truth that Soros claims he is fighting for is only found in the society based on the natural family which he seeks to destroy. Such is the contradiction of modern man. As G. K. Chesterton would remind Soros about family and marriage: “The ideal for which [marriage] stands in the state is liberty. It stands for liberty for the very simple reason … [that] it is the only … institution that is at once necessary and voluntary. It is the only check on the state that is bound to renew itself as eternally as the state, and more naturally than the state … This is the only way in which truth can ever find refuge from public persecution, and the good man survive the bad government.” Once again, I turn to the great Hungarian philosopher, Thomas Molnar, who warned us of the Marxists and Utopians like Soros and exposed their weaknesses: “Utopian thinking is not merely futile, it is also profoundly immoral since it contradicts the structure of man’s thought and action in its applicability to the world. Since it misleads man, it is an ultimately irresponsible doctrine.”13 Molnar added: “Passion for equality blinds the utopian to the fact that society, as a whole, is based on inequality of men in two respects: the inventor, the innovator, the exceptional man creates something new and insures continuous progress; the others emulate his work or merely improve their own lot by benefiting from his creativity.”14

The large task to restore the natural family as the fundamental unit of society requires new ways of dialogue, thinking and acting. In the words of Russell Kirk, we need a moral imagination to promote the natural family. “The moral imagination is an enduring source of inspiration that elevates us to first principles as it guides us upwards towards virtue and wisdom and redemption.” Fittingly from Hungary, the nation where the anti-family ideologies spread, comes the antidote of moral imagination. The new pro-family ideas among many of the political elites in Hungary and its constitution and laws which protect family, marriage and life from conception to natural death represent this new hope among national leaders and the pro-family movement, worldwide. This might be best summarised in Hungary’s new national goal and slogan, “The Family- Friendly Country”. This new political pro-family movement is spearheaded by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who articulated this goal for Hungary in 2015 in his speech to the Budapest Demographic Forum: “We would like Hungary to claim to be a family-friendly country, but this is not yet the case. This is the goal we have set for ourselves; we still have much to do, however, before people who decide to have children and who envisage their lives within a family can feel that not only are they doing everything they can for their country, but that for its part their country is also doing everything it can for them. So, with due humility, accepting the message of this phrase, we should see it as a goal rather than a result which has been achieved.” In the speech Orbán expressed his view on the importance of family and children: “In Hungary the majority believe that in the modern age a child is both a blessing and a reward in the life of a family and in the life of society alike … We Hungarians believe that children magnify the strength of their parents, they magnify the strength of the family, and a generation of children magnify the strength of a nation, of a whole country, and finally our entire civilisation. Children magnify our capacity, and enable us to achieve more; this is the view we take. So children are a motivating force: a positive motivating force in the life of society, like no other we know of. After all, when we are old, they will look after us, they will attend to our needs, they will be the guarantee for renewal of our communities, and they will take forward the heritage which is everything which has made our lives meaningful.” And Orbán concluded, “I sincerely hope that we who have gathered here today want a Europe which is based on families …We want families to take centre stage in European politics once again.”15

Can the Hungarian government, Churches, and civil society continue the restoration of the natural family as the fundamental and sustainable unit of society in Hungary? Can Viktor Orbán create a new pro-family covenant in Europe and help build a global pro-family alliance on the successes in Hungary including the upcoming World Congress of Families XI, Budapest Family Summit (www.budapestfamilysummit. com) to be held 25–28 May 2017? Is this the turning point in history, where a rare opportunity exists to create a renaissance for the family and Judeo-Christian virtues? Only time will tell if we are able to recapture our humanity and put the natural family first in policies, idea and practices, and once again create a life space for human flourishing – homes with mothers, fathers and children.


1 Chesterton, G. K. The Superstition of Divorce. London: Chatto & Windus, 1920.

2 Carlson, Allan C. and Paul T. Mero. The Natural Family: Bulwark of Liberty. New Brunswick: Transaction, 2007.

3 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Washington, DC: US GPO, 1949.

4 Molnar, Thomas. “Desacralisation in Modern Society”. Crisis Magazine, 1 Feb. 1983.

5 Westermarck, Edward. The History of Human Marriage: 5th edition. London: Macmillan, 1925: 26–37, 69–72.

6 Murdock, George Peter. Social Structure. New York: The Free Press, 1965 (1949): 1–8.

7 Guillaume, Pierre and Frédéric Le Play, La Réforme sociale, Vol. 1, Book 3. Tours: A. Mame et fils, 1887: chapters 24–30.

8 Zimmerman, Carle and Pitirim Sorokin. Principles of Rural-Urban Sociology. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1929.

9 Zimmerman, Carle and Merle Frampton. Family and Society: A Study of Sociological Reconstruction. New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1935: 133, 221–37.

10 Sorokin, Pitirim. The Crisis of Our Age. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1941; also Pitirim Sorokin, The American Sex Revolution. Boston: Porter Sargeant, 1956.

11 Nisbet, Robert. The Quest for Community: A Study in the Ethics of Order & Freedom. San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1990 (1953); and Robert Nisbet, Twilight of Authority. New York: Oxford University Press, 1975.

12cKirk, Russell. Enemies of the Permanent Things; Observations of Abnormality in Literature and Politics. New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1969. Print.

13 Molnar, Thomas Steven. The Decline of the Intellectual. New Brunswick, NJ, USA: Transaction, 2013. Print.

14 Molnar, Thomas Steven. Utopia: The Perennial Heresy. Lanham: University Press of America, 1990. Print.

15 Orbán, Viktor. “Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Speech at the Budapest Demographic Forum”. Government of Hungary, Prime Minister. N.p., 5 Nov. 2015. Web. 22 Apr. 2017.

Most recent

Newsletter signup

Like it ? Share it !

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on pocket
Share on email