The Powers That Be

.
Is "someone" or some "thing" behind all of this monkeying around with our culture?

It's natural to seek someone to point a finger at, to try to explain how this could have happened to us. There are many different opinions and there are certainly enough pivotal events in history which are shrouded in mystery or lost knowledge to fuel many a conspiracy theory.

I can see two reactions amongst my readers as I say this. The first is going, "Well thank, goodness! I was wondering if he had the balls to bring that subject up." 

The Cervelati (33rd Order of the Salami)

"Et Tu, Brute?" My other reader's eyes roll back in their heads as they begin supress their gag reflex, "Oh no! Here comes the talk about the Illuminati and the Protocols of the Elders Zion. Or wait, maybe this guy believes it's the Rothschild's... and he's going to link both Hitler and Marx to the banking elites and the Bilderberg Group... or perhaps he'll tell us about the Masons, the Skull and Bones and the sex-party initiations at the Bohemian Grove."

Well, not really - although I would like to briefly address some of these ideas to illustrate where my general position is on the matter and how it actually helped me understand the concepts of "truth" found within these pages.

"Conspiracy theories," by the way, are not ridiculous in and of themsevles. Throughout history many major events involved conspiracies.

- Julius Caesar was assasinated in a conspiracy.

- Otto von Bismarck conspired to foment the Franco-Prussian War by falsifying documents, which resulted in the unification of the Germanic States.

- The US Founding Fathers met in secrecy and conspired to overthrow the rule of the king and start a new nation.

History is positively filled with conspiracy theories that turned out to be conspiracy "fact."

Even in the modern day, we know that the CIA has used various subversive techniques to influence the direction of a nation's populace. They did it in Central America and South East Asia. They did it in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they're doing it today in both the Ukraine and China through the use of various NGO's and other organizations.

Click Picture for Larger View

Furthermore, we now know for a fact from the Venona Project that during the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the KGB was indeed using subversive propaganda programs in an attempt to undermine Western Culture - to affect our belief in religion, sexual morality, patriotism and so forth. The rebellious sixties were indeed a wild ride for the Baby Boomers, and it wasn't entirely accidental. 

Also, since the Financial Crisis of '08/09, there is no doubt that powerful banking and corporate interests influence the corridors of government. The "Man-Cession" that resulted also showed us that corporate interests and the interests of the citizens are absolutely not aligned with one another. This is what resulted in corporations off-shoring all of our good-paying manufacturing jobs, replacing us Westerners with what amounts to slave labour from the developing world, all in the name of Free Trade and Gloablization - which by the way, was mostly lobbied for by organizations funded by the very corporations that so vastly have profited from it.

If one were to "follow the money," those who most benefited from the Women's Lib of the 60's and 70's, when women flooded the workforce, were large corporations. After all, by doubling the supply of workers available to them they halved the cost of labour and booked greater profits because of it.

Also, the more divorce and family break-down there is, the more these corporations create a demand for their goods. A divorced man and woman need two fridges instead of one, after all. Do you think General Electric doesn't understand this? Most of corporate profits from mass-produced products are made "at the margin." What that means is there is a fixed cost to mass-producing a certain product - that GE, for example, must sell five million refrigerators a year to simply break even on the costs of materials and the factory and infrastructure needed to assemble them. The profit is made from selling six million refrigerators, or, 100% of the profit is made on the last million refrigerators sold, not the first five million. Therefore, if an increase in divorce raises the demand for refrigerators by only 10%, they will now have increased the amount of refrigerators sold to 6.6 million, and will have increased their profits by 60%. That is a huge incentive to support the break-down of the family and traditional gender roles, don't you think? 

The government as well has grown exponentially over the past century and has become an "organism" that is self-serving in its own right. Government never gets smaller but only grows, trying to justify its existence and ever-higher budgets by creating problems rather than solving them. In the case of the government, becoming as dysfunctional as possible actually increases their power. If children aren't learning to read at school, for example, this becomes the rationale for increasing the budget to hire special educators to "solve" the problem. The worse the government works, the bigger it grows. The more people the government pushes into welfare, the greater power those who control the welfare programs are granted. It's perverse, but because government is an abstract concept of "they" that seems theoretically perfectible, people assume that the government "should" do this or that because they are detached from the rest of the population. No-one ever seems to realize those people we put in government who "should" behave altruistically, are also the exact same neighbours and people you know you would never, ever trust to intrude into your life in other areas.

NGO's supposedly formed to help battered women are given billions of tax dollars per year. Does anyone really think they will ever declare that the "crisis" has passed and they will only need 50% of the tax dollars they did last year? Of course not - they'd lose power then. These organization exist to serve themselves, not the people they purport to help. They have a vested interest in intensifying the problems rather than actually solving them.   

Not only that, but there is the whole of history to look at. As I've pointed out before, there are oodles of examples of cultures and civilizations rising and falling, often for the same reasons - like an androgynizing of the sexes and falling birthrates. We aren't the first people to be faced with these problems - it seems to be a recurring problem. In fact, when looking at the structure of America and how its Constitution is used to anchor itself into Absolute Truth by declaring rights are granted by The Creator (The Absolute is out of human reach and can't be changed), rather than by the State and its laws (The Subjective is easily changed), it seems quite clear that they knew there is a human tendency to rationalize things away until there is no longer a functioning society.

And, of course, I have myself pointed out that placing the Relative Truth above the Absolute Truth is as old as humankind itself, making it a natural part of the human condition - something we've had to struggle against since we emerged from the primordeal ooze.

The fact of the matter is, I haven't a clue who all the players are behind the scene, nor can I actually prove that any of them really exist in some sinister sense or not - although I have my suspicions.

However, there ARE certain things we can see which remove any doubt that "they" fully understand what they are doing. Look at this claim from the Canadian NGO called C.A.R.E. which is designed to help women in developing nations:

"When a girl in the developing world receives seven years of education, she marries four years later and has 2.2 fewer children."

In other words, I am not the only one who understands that monkeying with hypergamy by pushing women into the workforce splits apart the genders and causes the birthrate to fall. This is not a judgement on whether women should get an education or not - it is just pointing out that it's known what the effects of it are, and in fact it's being manipulated into these developing countries' populations as a means of birth-control - something which again is not a judgement, because many of the poorest countries in the world certainly do need to lower their birthrates.

Countries in the Western World, however, have negative birthrates and are in serious peril of collapsing and disappearing from the face of the earth over the next century - or less. Therefore, it is only logical to assume that "they" also know they are killing off our Western culture by affirmative actioning women over men - despite half-assed claims to show they are concerned with the birthrates of their dying nations. Why are we at the same time cheering that women receive 60% of all university degrees? Furthermore, in the one area men still dominate - STEM subjects - there is a decided movement to affirmative action in at least 50% females, just to be "fair." Obviously, there are people who fully understand why our Western birthrates have plummeted, and they keep recommending more of it! One is left only with the conclusion that these people are purposefully trying to kill off Western Culture by shoving a feminist suicide-pill down our throats.

And I do know that the world is running pell-mell towards a one-world order, the end result of globalization. I also know that the end goal of the philosophies of Marxism were never about Soviet domination of the earth, but rather about creating a global government. The idea of Communism is international socialism while Fascism is national socialism, and it certainly does seem that this goal of creating a one-world system based on a global, centrailized government that adheres to Socialism will be achieved in my lifetime. Each and every time a "crisis" has occured over the past decades, it has been used to justify sacrificing national sovereignty to some supra-national organization or another. This is actual treason, by the way, since nowhere in the constitution of any country on earth is there authorization to cede national sovereignty to a foreign ruling body like this.

So what to do? I could write an entire book about "who" and still never prove it - at least not any further than hundreds of others already have. If that's your thing, you are more than welcome to take what I have written and draw your own conclusions.

What I have doing, however, is following the line of Anatoliy Golitsyn, author of New Lies for Old and one of the highest level KGB officers to ever defect to the USA. After being interrogated by the CIA for several weeks, who were pushing picture after picture in front of Golitsyn trying to get him to identify all of the KGB moles in various institutions and embassies around the world, he got angry and shouted at them:

"Who care about all the names in the KGB, if you don't understand what they are doing?"  









Throughout this chapter, that is what I will be focusing on: What "they" are doing, rather than who "they" are.

I have zeroed in on the aspect of the problem which I loosely call "Marxism," although perhaps this is not the best term because what we are dealing is a bastardized version of Marx's Economic Theory. I've veered off more into the world of Cultural Marxism - since we are dealing with culture - and further, the philosophical significance of Hegel's and later Marx's "Dialectic," which was based upon the idea of "The Truth is Relative" and the abolishing of the Absolute. This obviously upset the "truth hierarchy" as put forth by the Bible, John Locke, and the Constitution as created by the USA's Founding Fathers: 

Click Pic for "The Masculine Principle"

1 - God's Law/Absolute Truth
2 - Natural Law/Objective Truth = Masculine Principle
3 - Civil Law/Subjective Truth = Feminine Principle

After Hegel & Marx, the ordering became like this:

1 - Subjective Truth = The Feminine Principle
2 - Subjective Truth = The Feminine Principle
3 - Subjective Truth = The Feminine Principle

Also, it's not just "Marxists" who want to exert their will by tearing down the higher truths and replacing them with lower ones. For example, Auguste Comte, the father of the social sciences, devised a system back in the 1800's for totalitarian population control based upon sociological manipulations, and he too asserted that the world must be led by the feminine principle rather than the masculine principle.

Marx himself had this to say of the subject of women and society:  

"Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included."  

This, of course, leads to wondering just what the heck was it that Marx meant by that, and why do totalitarians want the world structured under the feminine principle rather than the masculine principle?

That's what we'll be examining next under the loose term of "Marxism."


.

Previous / Index / Next

.

.

It's Not Marxism Because...

.
"A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised." - Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806
.

One of the most common arguments I see made against the notion that feminism and Marxism are one in the same goes something like this:

"Feminism and Marxism aren't related because Stalin's policy of xyz was certainly not feminist!" (or Mao's, or Pol Pot's or Gorbachev - take your pick).

Another common argument goes like this:

"Russian women aren't raving feminists like American women, therefore, Marxism and feminism aren't related."

Well, all these things may be true, but, one must also realize that Marxism is kinda like Christianity in that while it has a large over-riding ideology, there are many different denominations with varying beliefs. Lenin's interpretation of Marxism was one such type, called Leninism, and when Stalin took over he interpreted Marxism in a different way - over-riding some of Lenin's beliefs - and thus becoming "Stalinism." Mao as well interpreted Marxism differently from Stalin, and this became known as "Maoism." So, just as it is false to say that Protestants aren't Christians because they don't have a Pope and never go to confession, so is it false to say that Marxism and feminism are unrelated because of reason XYZ during Boris Yeltsin' s vodka soaked tenure at the helm.

Mostly when people such as myself assert that Marxism and feminism are one in the same, it has a lot to do with the philosophies behind Marxism, such as the oppressor vs. victim class, the use of the Marxist dialectic to manipulate the population, the "end-goal" of Marxism & feminism being remarkably similar, and most of all it comes from Engels' own words (Marx made a few references to liberating women, but Engels really got into it).

A few years back, Carey Roberts wrote several articles on this very subject, and I would like to quote a few of them to illustrate why the Soviet Union under Lenin is often referred to as a feminist Utopia.

From The Marxist Prescription for Women's Liberation:

"In the 1840's, Marx concocted this bizarre theory: Since working men were oppressed by capitalist economies, then women were doubly-victimized by the effects of capitalism and patriarchy.

This is how Karl Marx and Frederick Engels explained it in their 1848 Communist Manifesto:

 "What is the present family based on? On capitalism, the acquisition of private property... The bourgeois sees in his wife nothing but production."

In his 1884 book, The Origin of the Family, Engels elaborated on the theme of patriarchal oppression:  

"The overthrow of mother was the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took control in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children.""
.

 ***

.
Furthermore, after the Russian Revolution, Lenin (not Stalin or Kruschev) erected a system in society to fully liberate women from marriage and the role of motherhood. These measures he took are 100% in line with any feminist family or workplace initiative in our modern day Western Civilization. Stalin, in fact, removed many of Lenin's feminist policies because it was obvious how much it was harming the people and thus, the state. You have to keep in mind, when the Russian Revolution occured under Lenin, all of the Marxist philosophers around the world waited anxiously for the global revolution to happen - for the workers to rise up, throw off their chains and unite. This was supposed to cause a collapse of the nation states around the world and the emergence of a new order under the umbrella of global, Communist governance. Obviously this never happened. But we can assume from this, however, that Lenin's structuring of society was more directly based upon Marx and Engel's philosophies than Stalin's - for Stalin had to concern himself with maintaining a functioning state for the longterm, something probably not given too much consideration by the Leninists who were waiting around for all the world's nation-states to collapse. 

From When Family Dissolution Becomes the Law of the Land, by Carey Roberts:

"So in 1918, Lenin introduced a new marriage code that outlawed church ceremonies. Lenin opened state-run nurseries, dining halls, laundries and sewing centers. Abortion was legalized in 1920, and divorce was simplified.

In a few short years, most of the functions of the family had been expropriated by the state. By 1921, Lenin could brag that "in Soviet Russia, no trace is left of any inequality between men and women under law."

But Lenin's dream of gender emancipation soon dissolved into a cruel nightmare of social chaos.

First, the decline of marriage gave rise to rampant sexual debauchery. Party loyalists complained that comrades were spending too much time in love affairs, so they could not fulfill their revolutionary duties.

Not suprisingly, women who were sent out to labor in the fields and factories stopped having babies. In 1917, the average Russian woman had borne six children. By 1991, that number had fallen to two. This fertility free-fall is unprecedented in modern history.

But it was the children who were the greatest victims. As a result of the break-up of families, combined with civil war and famine, countless numbers of Russian children found themselves without family or home. Many ended up as common theives or prostitutes.

In his recent book, "Perestroika," Mikhail Gorbachev reflected on 70 years of Russian turmoil: "We have discovered that many of our problems -- in children's and young people's behaviour, in our morals, culture and in production -- are partially caused by the weakening of family ties.""
.

 ***

.
It's not hard to see why the Soviet Union after the Revolution is so often referred to as a feminist paradise, eh?

So, when and why did it change?

From "Roots of American Culture and Community in Disarray" -- Statement of Bill Woods to the Committee on Ways and Means:

"FAMILY LAW, CHILD SUPPORT, AND WELFARE FROM MARXISM?

Many people would be shocked to learn that much of the current “family law” system we have today, which is at the heart of so much of our modern social upheaval and America’s “welfare state,” was born in the Soviet Union. Still more shocking would be the revelation that when the Soviet Union discovered its system was a disastrous failure, it instituted serious reforms in the early 1940’s to try to restore the family and the country. The Soviets made these changes when fatherlessness (which included children from divorced fathers) reached around 7 million children and their social welfare structure (day cares, kindergartens, state children’s facilities, etc.) was overburdened. Yet in America, some studies suggest that we are approaching 11 or 12 million such children. All the while, the social and financial costs of welfare and fatherlessness are just now gaining more widespread attention. America’s fatherlessness crisis is primarily by judicial making with the cooperation of the legions of lawyers and bureaucrats who profit from family destruction which rips America apart.

Unfortunately, the Soviet reforms came too late and never brought about the extent of social reconstruction that would have allowed recovery from its self-inflicted social destruction. It was unable to stave off its widely celebrated collapse when the Berlin wall came down. Even though the Soviets tried in vain to restore the social values they had worked so hard to eradicate..."
.

***

.
As one can plainly see from the quotes above, feminism and Marxism are intricately linked. The fact that Stalin changed the Soviet Union's family policy after he took power in no way discredits that Lenin attempted to create a feminist Utopia after the Russian Revolution. He obviously based his feminist policies on Marx & Engels' ideas on the subject. Feminist goals are 100% aligned with the ideas put forth by V.I. Lenin, and thus ought to be more accurately described as Marxist-Leninist. Feminism is very much based upon Marxism.

"The Women's Caucus [endorses] Marxist-Leninist thought." -- Robin Morgan, Sisterhood is Powerful, p. 597

.

Previous / Index / Next

.

.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Lenin's March 8th, 1921 speech on International Working Women's Day:

"But you cannot draw the masses into politics without drawing in the women as well. For under capitalism the female half of the human race is doubly oppressed. The working woman and the peasant woman are oppressed by capital, but over and above that, even in the most democratic of the bourgeois republics, they remain, firstly, deprived of some rights because the law does not give them equality with men; and secondly—and this is the main thing—they remain in household bondage", they continue to be “household slaves", for they are overburdened with the drudgery of the most squalid, backbreaking and stultifying toil in the kitchen and the family household.

No party or revolution in the world has ever dreamed of striking so deep at the roots of the oppression and inequality of women as the Soviet, Bolshevik revolution is doing. Over here, in Soviet Russia, no trace is left of any inequality between men and women under the law. The Soviet power has eliminated all there was of the especially disgusting, base and hypocritical inequality in the laws on marriage and the family and inequality in respect of children.

This is only the first step in the liberation of woman. But none of the bourgeois republics, including the most democratic, has dared to take oven this first step. The reason is awe of “sacrosanct private property."

The second and most important step is the abolition of the private ownership of land and the factories. This and this alone opens up the way towards a complete and actual emancipation of woman, her liberation from “household bondage” through transition from petty individual housekeeping to large-scale socialised domestic services."
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.

Further Reading: 

Marxist Feminism's Ruined Lives -- by Mallory Millet (Sister of famed feminist, Kate Millet) 
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.

Previous / Index / Next

.

.

Cultural Pillars and Critical Theory

.
"All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm… these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character… [A general war will] wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward." -- Friedrich Engels, "The Magyar Struggle," Neue Rhenische Zeitung, January 13, 1849
.
Immediately after Russia's October Revolution of 1917, Lenin withdrew from fighting in World War One, although the formal end of Russia's involvement wasn't until the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918.  The Great War in Europe had all been predicted by Marx and Engels decades earlier and it appeared things were going exactly as they should. The next event that should have happened was for the common-man (the workers) to throw off their chains and unite under a new, global system of Communist Utopia. 

Of course, it never happened. This was a pivotal and confusing moment in the world of Marxism. Obviously, since the global revolution didn't appear as predicted, Marx and Engels had gotten something wrong. It is from here that "Marxism" goes from being strictly an economic theory and into the realm of cultural theory. 

Many Marxists began to study "what went wrong," and also why the people now living under Lenin's rule didn't embrace their new utopia, but only paid obligatory lip service to it. Certain Marxists, such as Antonio Gramsci, began to theorize that Marx had not gone far enough by defining society only in economic terms - rather, there were "cultural pillars" which also prevented the common man from embracing his new role in the world. The people of the nations of Europe, even though they were badly damaged by the war, still had strong ties of loyalty to their countries, religions and traditions - all of which had prevented Marx's global utopia from appearing.

Click Pic for "Who Stole Our Culture" -- by William S. Lind

It is from this train of thought that "the Frankfurt School" was established - to study what held society together culturally... and how to make it collapse. This group stayed in Germany until the 1930's, but since many of them were Jews being targeted by Hitler and the Nazis, they disbanded and relocated to various universities located throughout the West where they continued with their studies.

These "Cultural Marxists" showed there were different levels of "identity" in the human psyche. Further, if you removed one level the subject would "pop up" to the next.


Individual --> Family --> Community --> Region (Province/State) --> Nation --> World (Communist Party)

Removing family identity causes the individual "pop up" to the community level, and if you remove regional loyalties, the identity "pops up" to the national level, and so on. Their goal, of course, was to remove all loyalties to anyone but "The Party."

Individual --> The World (Global Communism)

The "pillars of Western society" which Cultural Marxists identified for destruction were:

Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention, and conservatism.
.
Not only did Cultural Marxists identify these pillars, all of which have obviously been significantly weakened over the past fifty years, (a great cause for alarm even if there is no "conspiracy" behind it), but they also devised techniques to attack them - the most notable of which is called "Critical Theory."  
.
Critical Theory
.
The general idea behind Critical Theory is to use criticism (based on "the Truth is Relative") to destroy by continual division.

A necessary tool for Critical Theorists is the Agent Provocateur, for without someone starting the argument, Critical Theory never begins. A conflict must be started for the plan of Critical Theory to be implemented. 

 The second tool Critical Theorists use is the natural human behaviour of fearing difference from the crowd. An example of this is the use of Political Correctness to slowly encourage mass acceptance of an idea. Human alienation is a powerful threat and therefore there is a strong urge to compromise your own principles in order to maintain social cohesion with the larger group.

The last tool Critical Theorists employ is a technique of brainwashing which originates from the psychology of people subjected to torture - they took the physical parts out but left the mental aspect in.

This is the 3-step brainwashing technique of how to change personal values:
1 - UNFREEZING from the present level of acceptence.
2 - MOVING the subject to the next level.
3 - FREEZING the subject at the new level until proper acceptance occurs. (Repeat until the desired destruction is achieved.)
.

So, could you destroy something absolute like mathematics with such techniques? 

Sure you could. Imagine that you have proven to yourself that 1+1=2 by physically using oranges to illustrate the absoluteness of the statement.
.

It's all pretty simple, one orange plus another orange equals two oranges and I know it's true because I can physically prove it. Life is good and the Canada Tax & Revenue Agency is continually pleased I am filing my taxes accurately based on the "orange calculator." There is no need to change this system, because it works.

Along comes Delilah, an Agent Provocateur, and she notices my system - to which she points out that oranges are made up of segments. In fact there are 10 orange segments which make up an orange.

"Fair enough," I say, "there are oranges and there are orange segments which make up 1/10 of an orange. The math still works."
.
The next time I see Delilah, she argues with me that it is discriminatory for me to consider an orange segment to be only 1/10th the value of an orange. She argues that without the segments, the orange wouldn't exist, therefore each segment is worth FAR more than just 1/10th of an orange.

The "truth is relative," remember?

She tells me that it's discriminatory to consider the "traditional orange" to be more valuable than orange segments and demands that I acknowledge all parts of oranges are important, whether that be "traditional oranges" or orange segments. By allowing her to define an orange as a "traditional orange," I have already lost half the battle because by such a definition one has to acknowledge that there are types of oranges other than the traditional.

As time goes on, Delilah and her friends start to grumble, "Anyone who does math using traditional oranges is a hate-filled, right-wing Orangaphobe."

Click Pic for "Marxist Feminism's Ruined Lives" -- by Mallory Millet (Sister of Kate)

 The next time I see Delilah she hardly even bothers to speak to me. She is marching with her friends, all carrying signs reading: "Respect ALL kinds of oranges" and "Stop Bigots from Determining for Me What an Orange Is." Finally the last moronic Delilah follower walks by with a sign saying "All Oranges are Equal - Equality for Orange Segments."

I think you can see where this simplified example is going. Eventually, if they can get "unequal" parts of a traditional orange to be defined as equal... well, effectively, math has been destroyed because now math can be 1+1=2 or 1+1=11, or 15, or 20... Math is useless, so let's just do away with it!
.
Of course, there's much more to it all than the basic outline I've put forth here, but that's something we'll explore in the next section.
.

Previous / Index / Next

.

.

Useful Idiots Play Checkers, Marxists Play Chess

.
A mistake I think many "conspiracy theorists" make is trying to account for every single event as being some sort of manipulation. It doesn't really have to be as complex as that - there are really only certain pivotal arguments that need to be won, so that the general direction will turn. For example, giving women the vote, due to their more security-based psychology (as opposed to men's individualistic psychology) pretty much guaranteed that government would turn socialist and begin to grow. This has been explored by John Lott and Lawrence Kenny's study titled, "Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?"

In the same way, if parental authority is undermined by "children's rights," I can pretty much guarantee that there will be untold havoc created in people's families. Making the hierarchy upside down naturally causes problems. The private cannot lead the general. The employee cannot lead the employer. The child cannot lead the parent. Take any of these situations and reverse the hierarchy, and it's pretty easy to see how they will naturally canabalize themselves until they are utterly destroyed. Some arguments are more important than others - because they can set off a chain reaction of further arguments in the future.
.
Dialectical Arguments
 
To understand what Marxists are trying to do, one must first understand what Hegel did with the dialectic.The dialectic was not invented by Hegel and it is nothing new. It merely means opposing positions, or in other words, an argument.

Traditional logic says that if Position A (1+1=2) is correct, then Position B (1+1=3) is incorrect. Pretty easy speazy, eh?

However, in Hegelian terms, Position A is called the Thesis (position) and the opposing argument is called the Anti-Thesis (opposite position). Essentially what Hegel did was take the two and equalized them, claiming the truth was found in the Synthesis, which means the consensus or compromise, between the two.

The Synthesis then becomes the new truth (Thesis), and the next Anti-Thesis is pitted against it creating yet another Synthesis (New Truth), and so on and so on, like a staircase.
.
The staircase kind of works like precedents that are set in a court of law. A previous court case (argument) concluded in a certain way, thereby setting a precedent. That precedent is then often used in future court cases as an established truth upon which even further arguments are based. This staircase has been going on in regards to the Gender War as well, and looks something like the chart to the left of this page.
.
"Differences [between men and women], including the products of social inequality, make unequal treatment not unequal at all." -- Catharine MacKinnon, "Reflection on Sex Equality Under Law," Yale Law Journal, 1991 
.

(You can substitute Affirmative Action for Man Tax, or any other host of discriminations against men based on the inequalities between the sexes generated by "The Truth is Relative.")
.
Now, if you look at these arguments in the staircase fashion of one truth building on another truth, you can see why it becomes so important to think multi-dimensionally about an argument - and the ones that will follow - rather than focusing solely on the argument at hand, which is what most of the populace will do.

If you could control the key arguments in the dialectic, then you could also make things in society appear (a man-tax) or make things disappear (the traditional family). You simply turn the staircase upside down and work the argument backwards - thus, you will be arriving at a pre-determined conclusion.  

You can also see the need for Marxists to think two, three, four or five steps ahead. In fact, I've read before that many Marxists who became national leaders, such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc., rose to prominence in large part because of the status they generated by showing how well they could manipulate dialectical arguments. Here is what one famous Marxist had to say on the subject:

"Dialectical thought is related to vulgar thinking in the same way that a motion picture is related to a still photograph. The motion picture does not outlaw the still photograph but combines a series of them according to the laws of motion." -- Leon Trotsky

Where most people run amock is they are only thinking about one argument at a time, rather than in a series of them all linked with the intention of arriving at a pre-determined goal.
.
Useful Idiots and Consolodating the Gains to the Left
.
After the Revolution, Lenin wrote that he would install a Marxist bureaucratic government without the support of dedicated Marxists. Only the inner elite would understand the political structure being built, while others would be manipulated to forward his agenda by their natural vanity and ambition to further their political careers. He called such people "Useful Idiots."

Furthermore, he understood that an angry pressure builds up (backlash) when manipulating mass-populations and this pressure needs a release valve. Lenin combined this knowledge within dialectical manipulation and allowed for controlled backlashes that, in fact, furthered his agenda even though it appeared to oppose his goals.

"It would be the greatest mistake, certainly, to think that concessions mean peace. Nothing of the kind. Concessions are nothing but a new form of war." -- V.I. Lenin

This is kind of a difficult concept at first, because it doesn't make much sense on the surface. The shortest route between point A and point B is a straight line, and that is how most people think things work - and usually they are right, except when dealing with Marxists.

"Wishing to advance in a room full of people, I do not walk through the aisle and straight toward my goal. Nor do I move slowly through the crowd shaking hands with friends and acquaintences, discussing points of interest, gradually nearing the objective. The dialectical pathway is different. It consists of a resolute forward advance followed by an abrubt turn and retreat. Having retreated a distance there is another turn and advance. Through a series of forwardbackward steps the goal is approached. To advance thus is to advance dialectically. The Communist goal is fixed and changeless, but their direction of advance reverses itself from time to time. They approach their goal by going directly away from it a considerable portion of the time. Lenin wrote the textbook, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back. Chinese Communist schoolchildren are taught to do the dialectical march taking three steps forward and two steps back. If we judge where the Communists are going by the direction in which they are moving we will obviously be deceived" -- Dr. Fred Schwarz, President of the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade

OK, so they go two steps forward and one step back. But what's the point of that?

Well, the point is that the backlash consolodates the gains! The general modus operandi is to push hard with radical leftism. Of course, radical leftward movements cause lots of social upheavel, such as how the radical move of No-Fault-Divorce has caused untold grief in our society for all parties involved. After time, enough people are angry and bitter about these policies which harmed them on a personal level that a backlash movement begins to develop.That backlash is then "released" to let off the steam, but the backlash is only allowed in ways that concentrate more power in the hands of the State.

These things don't happen fast, mind you, but take several years - often a generation. Lenin sped things up by using government force and direct violence, but Lenin was only one faction of Marxist theory, which is obviously called "Leninism." Another faction is called "Fabianism."
.
The Long March Through the Culture
.

Fabian Socialists adopted their name from the Roman general, Fabius, who battled and defeated the infamous Hannibal and his elephants when he invaded Italy. Hannibal had a vastly superior army but was far from his home and supplies, so Fabius organized
a campaign of hit-and-run tactics against Hannibal's army. He harassed and confounded the enemy, wearing them down bit by bit over time until finally Hanibal capitulated and admitted defeat. Fabian Socialists adopted Fabius' strategy, veering away from Lenin's use of violence to effect change. Instead, the Fabians used techniques involving time to alter perceptions of the truth.

In the previous section, I wrote about how the Frankfurt School's Critical Theory utilizes brainwashing techniques to alter the population's perceptions of the truth. The basic plot is to unfreeze the subject from his current comfort level and move him to a different level, then freeze them at that next level until they have accepted their new paradigm as "normal." This technique was based on the practice of torture, but merely removed the physical parts of it while keeping the mental aspects intact. For example, prisoners of war often have described the mental aspect of weeks or months spent in isolation as more damaging to them then the actual physical tortures they endured. Alienation from the group is a very real threat to humans, as we are naturally social creatures.

The technique of using time rather than violence is the only thing that changed with the Fabian's viewpoint on Marxism. They agreed with Lenin's goals, but only differed with him because he used violence to speed up the populace's willingness to accept his dictats.

Really, if you have a look at it all, what took Lenin four years to implement has taken the Fabians/Cultural Marxists 40 years to replicate. But the end result is pretty much consistent.

For example, a few years after the Russian Revolution in 1917, Lenin declared  at a speach for "International Women's Working Day" on March 8th, 1921, that he had created the first system of equality and had liberated women from their chains. Lenin instituted no-fault divorce, easy abortions, state-run day-care centres, community kitchens, sewing centres, and other such things to alieviate women from their biological duties to children and family, and put them to work with the pick-axe and shovel. He claimed he had ended discrimination against women and had liberated them by doing such. It took him four years, by use of violence, to implement his policies.
.

In our case, throughout the Western world, after forty years of second-wave feminism gradually eroding society, we have arrived at virtually the same place. We have many groups lobbying businesses and the government to impose upon employers such things as corporate run daycare centres and flex-time so that they may realize their true "equality." In the last few Canadian elections, state-run daycare has been a constant issue. It's only a matter of time before it becomes reality. Basically, everything which Lenin declared he had done to make women "equal" in 1921, is now being seriously debated in our own legislative assemblies in the present day, and no-one bats an eye about it.

Why is it like that? It's because of gradualism.

For example, the population was unfrozen in the 1970's when we introduced the radical concept of No-Fault-Divorce (which the population did not request). This has caused untold grief for millions of people, but after 40 years and a generation or two of children raised in broken homes, no-one really questions the right to unilaterally force a divorce upon another party. We assume it is normal, even though it is a recent phenomenon that has only existed for a few decades in Western Civilization's multiple-millenia existence.

What's happened is enough people in society have accepted the notion that divorce is not only normal, but it is a right. Most 40-somethings like myself can only remember a distant time in their early existence when divorce wasn't the norm. A cultural paradigm has shifted, by use of gradualism and time. Now virtually everyone has 50% or more of their relationships ending in divorce, or was raised in a broken home to begin with. Divorce is so "normal" that no-one even questions its validity. The proper acceptance of new values, via brainwashing techniques, has been achieved.

Now the push is on for "shared-parenting" to alieviate the problems created by the divorce epidemic. Nobody is openly questioning if we should abolish No-Fault-Diivorce. No, not at all. All that is being said is that the system ought to be re-organized to make it more fair. Divorce is part of our culture now. The "acceptance" phase is now complete. It's time to move the family unit on to a further totalitarian idea that destroys the family, commonly known as Shared-Parenting, where the courts will decide every facet of people's children's lives, right down to the times they are allowed to see their parents. which religion they ought to subscribe to, and how far away their parents are physically allowed to live from them, which removes their right to freely move about the country.

And of course, this is what Marxists and feminists have wanted all along.
.
"The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male." -- Frederick Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State
.
"The first condition of the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society." [Engels, p.67] 
.
"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ...Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ...Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests." -- Linda Gordon, Function of the Family, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969

"...No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children. ... Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people's needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all." -- Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969
.
"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan, Sisterhood is Powerful, 1970, p.537
.
"The institution [of marriage] consistently proves itself unsatisfactory--even rotten.... The family is...directly connected to--is even the cause of--the ills of the larger society." -- Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (New York: Morrow, 1970), p. 254.
.
"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men." -- The Declaration of Feminism, November 1971
.
"[M]ost mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they 'marry' and raise children." -- Phyllis Chesler, Women and Madness (1972), p.294
.
"How will the family unit be destroyed? ... the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare." -- From Female Liberation by Roxanne Dunbar

.

 

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma" Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
.












.

"Women, like men, should not have to bear children... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed." -- Alison Jagger - Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)

.
"If even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are young... This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about childcare and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." -- Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p.100
.
"The care of children ...is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation... [This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." -- Kate Millet, Sexual Politics 178-17

"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them." -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman
.

 
"It takes a village" - Hillary Clinton

Wow! Those gringas really don't like marriage and children!

But it's pretty easy to see what is happening. No-one in our current society is demanding of the government to end No-Fault-Divorce and restore things sanely to the way they were before. Instead, vast lobby groups of disenfranchised fathers are merely complaining that they should have "shared-parenting." In other words,
since fathers are marginalized and don't often get custody of their children, they would rather that neither the father or mother had custody - in favour of the court keeping said custody, and dictating baby-sitting duties between the father and mother. If there is any dispute, the government will arbitrate it. If there is anything at all which is displeasing, the courts will handle it. If the father wants to take to the child to a Catholic church while the mother is a dedicated Wiccan, it will be the courts who paternalistically decide what is in the best interests of the child.

Has the government then not effectively taken custody of the children?

"Mmmm... Roasted Useful Idiot for Dinner"

The backlash to the right is used to consolodate the gains to the left. It's not a backlash to the way things were before. Rather, while the backlash movement thinks they are winning, in effect they are being mere useful idiots and only furthering along the Marxist and Feminist goals of removing children from their parents and placing them into government custody. After a few years of this - long enough to allow society in general to accept the new normal, an abrubt turn will occur and radical leftward movements will again appear, further removing freedom.

And the marginalized fathers of today will no longer be able to complain about their situation - after all, they won! They got their shared-parenting... and all of the totalitarianism that comes along with it.

"Destroy the family, you destroy the country." -- V.I. Lenin
. 
And isn't that what they wanted all along?
.

.

Previous / Index / Next

.

.