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 favor 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?

 

The backlash to the right is used to consolidate 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?