Perhaps I have given the wrong impression with my last post. It is not so much that I "want to quit," but more that I am very worried that for some issues, we are behaving exactly as "they" would expect us to. There is virtually no doubt that we are dealing with Marxist techniques of how to manipulate mass populations, and upon studying such techniques from the past, it becomes evident that Marxists never walk in a straight line. They always zig zag to get to their goal. They push to the left to cause the debate & the change, then they allow the backlash to the right to consolodate their gains.
So, for example, take Marriage/No Fault Divorce. They created No Fault Divorce 35 years ago or so. No Fault Divorce/The Decline of Marriage is one of the largest underlying factors of our societal ills. I don't think I need to go into them all, as most of you already understand them. But the point I would like make is that this was a radical push to the left. VERY RADICAL! Never heard of before! No Fault Divorce Laws have caused an enormous amount of other laws, it has created entirely new organizations, and it has created entirely new multi-billion dollar industries.
No Fault Divorce should go. Follow the time line from the advent of No Fault Divorce and let the pieces fall into place. This is Marxism at work - create the conflict and have a predetermined outcome. It does not become visible unless one has the benefit of 35 years of hindsight. No Fault Divorce has, over its time frame, become exactly the same as "Man Fault Divorce" before No Fault Divorce existed. And it was no accident. They wanted to split apart the sexes.
But it becomes so outrageous that "they" know there will be a backlash. They are not dummies. And don't forget, their whole game is to create a conflict with a predetermined outcome - so they can offer the "proper" solution. That it was women who spearheaded all of this claptrap with feminism was done more because it is obvious to everyone from Aristotle to Marx that women control the culture - so they must always be the spearhead into changing society, and the rest will follow. But these people are not stupid either. They know about people's psychology, women may be able to push unreasonably, but men will push back - eventually.
Men pushing back will be "the movement to the right." It will consolodate the gains they made with No Fault Divorce and also open the can of worms for their other stated goals: taking children from women and turning them over to the state. Shared parenting will reinforce the public's notion that there is nothing wrong with divorce and it will make it as firm as if it were in concrete that the State has more rights and power over people's children than the actual parents to whom such children belong! 50 or 60 years ago, people would have chased the state with pitchforks and shotguns if it were so arrogant to assume such a thing! Domestic Violence laws and shelters for men will also reinforce the "state's right" to invade our homes and control our personal lives. (Does anyone even remember Assault and Battery laws anymore?)
At any rate, I have much to say on this subject, including something that would work but is very difficult for me to convey to others properly. So, I will take my time and not try to do it all in one post. In the meantime, however, I am going to put up an old post for review because this is exactly what I wish to discuss... but with a twist.
First of all, let's find out what Marxism is all about. Phil Worts has an excellent article titled Communist (Community) Oriented Policing describing the basic philospohies behind Marxism that everyone should read:
It is absolutely essential for one to acknowledge the following in regard to Marxism/Cultural Marxism:
1). Karl Marx was heavily influenced by the philosophies of George W.F. Hegel to whom we can attribute the following maxim: "The Truth is Relative." Therefore, Hegelian philosophy will argue the possibility that 2+2 = 4 can also mean 2+2 = 3, or 9... There are no absolute truths. This was a mind blowing concept at the time, for people back then lived in a world where God DOES exist, and there was no questioning the black and whiteness of that within society. Hegel changed that.
Also of supreme importance is to acknowledge Karl Marx's statement: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it."
That one statement of Marx should always be kept in mind. Not only did he have in mind some fantasy about the kind of man that would emerge from from his "Utopia" but he directly states that his uses of the philosophies of the day are specifically designed to enable the changes which allow Utopia to come about. He is contemplating how to use "The Truth is Relative" to alter society for his own purposes. This is why he is considered a revolutionary. His philosophies are geared towards destroying society, allowing its ashes to fertilize the Utopian soil upon which the flower of his new form of mankind will flourish.
Marxist philosophies include much study on how to mass manipulate society.
2). After the Russian Revolution, a leading Marxist philosopher, Antonio Gramsci visited Lenin's Soviet Union to witness for himself how Marxist Utopia was progressing. Lenin had seized control of Russia via violence and then foisted Marxism upon the Russian people by use of force, and waited for Utopia to arrive. It didn't. So Gramsci set about to tackle the problem of why the people did not embrace Marxism, but rather only paid obligatory lip service to it. Gramsci concluded that Marx had not gone far enough by only identifying the economic system as what holds society together - so he expanded it to include society's culture and he identified the various pillars which created societal cohesiveness by way of culture. Gramsci essentially said that if one could destroy cultural pillars like religion, the family, nationalism etc., society would self-destruct and then Marxist Utopia would naturally occur without the use of violent revolution. He concluded that if a "long march through the culture" could occur, ultimately destroying his identified pillars of society, then society would self-destruct and there would be massive chaos out of which the population would request the government to impose totallitarian control in order to "stop the madness." It is important to note that the goal is to create conflict, not to stop it.
3). There once were two schools in the world dedicated to studying Marxist theories. One was in Russia and one was in Frankfurt, Germany. Thus the name "The Frankfurt School." The Frankfurt School, to put it simply, dedicated itself to tasks such as identifying what factors are necessary to form human cohesiveness at the level above the family unit... the community. This was because the family was identified by Gramsci as a "societal pillar" which needed to be destroyed. Those of the Frankfurt School also put effort into the study of "mass psychology" with the specific intention of how to destroy the societal "cultural pillars" which had been identified by Gramsci - they wanted to find out how to destroy such pillars without the use of violence which Lenin had displayed, and set about to study various techniques which would encourage the populations to willfully throw aside cultural values - without the use of force. Therefore, they designed the notion of Critical Theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory_(Frankfurt_School) The Frankfurt School disbanded when Hitler took control of Germany and its academics fled the country and integrated themselves into various areas of the Western World.
4). Critical Theory is essential to understand. The 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.
AND... that last tool Critical Theorists employ is a specific tool of brainwashing which can trace its origins to torture - they just took the physical torture 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 occurs.)
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 prove the absoluteness of the statement.
It's all pretty simple, 1 orange plus another orange equals two oranges and I know it's true because I can physically prove it. Life is good, the Canada Tax & Revenue Agency is continually pleased with the accuracy which Mr. Rob Fedders files his taxes 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 a 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 is discriminatory to consider the "traditional orange" to be more valuable than orange segments and she demands that I acknowledge that 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's friends start to grumble, anyone who does math using traditional oranges is a hate-filled, right-wing Orangaphobe. Rob doesn't respect all types of oranges equally and believes that traditional oranges are superior to other types of oranges... what a BIGOT!
The next time Delilah stops by, she hardly even talks 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!
Think this is a joke? Just another "Red Herring?" Let's put it all together.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it." -- Karl Marx
Antonio Gramsci theorized how communism would naturally take place if the identified cultural pillars of society were deconstructed by "a long march through culture."
Critical Theorists devised specific schemes to enable "a long march through culture" by use of "Critical Theory."
"We shall destroy you from within!" -- Nikita Kruschev, during the Kitchen Debate.
Classic Hegelian-Marxist Theory is illustrated by this statement: "Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go - even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity and precision on which the former depend." -- Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, "Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies" (New York Basic Books, 1994) p.116 (***Note: Patai & Koertge write from a critical perspective of the aforementioned logic and use it in the context of an example. See Daphne Patai's website here: http://www.daphnepatai.com/ And read about her work here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Patai )
Feminists and Gay Rights Activists have collaberated on a joint attack against marriage & the family, which Antonio Gramsci & the Frankfurt School had identified as a "cultural pillar" which must be destroyed. Take note of the theme which permeates from the following quotes from feminist & gay rights activists and see if you can spot the Marxist revolutionary theme:
"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
"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
"A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161
"It [Gay Marriage] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea of change in how society views and treats us." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "I do, I do, I do, I do, I do," OUT Magazine, May 1996, p.30
Read those quotes carefully and then sit back and ponder for yourself the following:
- Why did "No Fault Divorce" get foisted upon society without any massive outcry from the public requesting such a radical change?
- Why did we redefine the physical "Male and Female Sex" as Gender? Up until only a short while ago, gender was used solely to describe the feminine or masculine in languages, as is done in French. Why do we now have "gender sensitivity" towards heterosexuality, gay-relationships, lesbian relationships and trans-gendered relationsips? Could this have been possible without the sleight of hand of redefining "sex" as "gender?"
- Why are long-term heterosexual marriages refered to as "traditional marriages/family values?" Does this not, by default, acknowledge there are different kinds of marriages/families?
- Why do we now use the phrase "life partner", even as a preference over directly saying husband and wife?
- Why is there a push (here in Canada) to have all types of "families" declared to be equal? Obviously a single mother "family" or a homosexual "family" is not equal, because they are not equally equipped to produce children. They are not "equal" except by use of direct government intervention.
- How did it become recently possible (here in Canada) to have a family declared to legally be able to have 3 parents? Yes, 2 married lesbians and one male/father have all three legally been declared parents of the same child... the worry is now directly that this has opened the door to allow for polygamous relationships - sanctioned by the state of course... Does anyone remember the Gay Activists' cry, only 2 or 3 years ago that gay "marriage" would do nothing to alter the "traditional family." All those opposing gay marriage were intolerant bigots.
(Also, see my piece: "A New Kind of Bigotry" http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-kind-of-bigotry.html )
These examples are all indicitave of a Cultural Marxist plan to use Critical Theory to destroy marriage, which Antonio Gramsci had identified as something which needed to be destroyed. How many other areas of Western Life have been attacked by such a ploy?
Also, take notice something which is pure genius on behalf of the Cultural Marxists. They have chosen their Agent Provocateurs to argue against Nature! What a stroke of genius to have picked arguments which can never be won. There will always be these arguments that women are not equal to men, or that Gay Marriage's are not equal - because they cannot be equal by natural design! Imagine rallying people together to "fight the ocean's tide" or to "stop the moon," you will have them at your service for eternity. The night will never be equal to the day, no matter how many street lamps you erect. But the fight will always continue, because you will always be able to point out that the battle still hasn't been won... and that's the point.
Marxism needs conflict for its agenda. 100 years ago, people didn't run to the government to tell them what their family life was all about. And this is the real danger and the real goal of Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory. It encourages people to take something which the government didn't previously control, and then cause as much chaos and confusion in it as possible... so that people run to the government to "settle their differences" and thereby grant to the state the "power of definition/settlement" over something which it previously did not have power over.
Even those who are for "traditional families" are lost in this quagmire. Once upon a time, no-one questioned the word "family." There was only one kind of "family." Now, without society requesting that gov't be an arbiter, those same people are forced to petition the government to preserve their values... and automatically they default to the government the power to decide (totalitarianism), over something which the gov't never had the original power to decide over, and over which was not willfully given up by the people. The trick is not in who gets the biggest piece of the pie, but rather that all sides are now running to government to request that they get their piece. The people have willingly allowed the government to subvert their freedom and decide for them - totalitarianism is completed!
No, it is not a "red herring" to say that feminism IS Communism. It is very accurate. The red herring is all the other arguments which distract us from what is happening.
TAKE BACK THE LOGIC!