Useful Idiots Play Checkers, Marxists Play Chess 
The Masculine Principle | March 11, 2015 | by .
-------------------------
 .
 [http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pCa-Ic1_g7s/VQxbXzqvBiI/AAAAAAAADcg/_OQjxhqr3I4/s1600/H5GTD00Z.jpg]A
mistake I think many "conspiracy theorists
[http://masculineprinciple.blogspot.ca/2015/03/the-powers-that-be.html]"
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?"
[http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Eiversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf] 

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 
  
 [https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-v2B44a3xEms%2FT2YJDJU5gEI%2FAAAAAAAACIQ%2FVODn9XKEwcE%2Fs400%2Funtitled.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*]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. 
. 
 [https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-mKFiONi6XlA%2FT2YKTPYd44I%2FAAAAAAAACIY%2FbbxFDX21RSU%2Fs400%2Funtitled1.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*]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.

 [http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2vRcZuKXmm0/VQ2RqFbmVpI/AAAAAAAADhA/K3T-iphWKPo/s1600/untitled2a.png]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."

 [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CI-pEUvEvo0/VQ2MrSrwZ0I/AAAAAAAADgs/AkBXgO7TxRU/s1600/Zig%2BZag.png]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?

 [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-47t--kwM9rE/VQxbxc2kQ4I/AAAAAAAADco/ZFHhwZH6ZfA/s1600/backlash.jpg]
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
[http://masculineprinciple.blogspot.ca/2015/03/its-not-marxism-because_11.html],
which is obviously called "Leninism." Another faction is called
"Fabianism."
. 
THE LONG MARCH THROUGH THE CULTURE 
. 

 [http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GsRzUrzdriU/VQxcxGSAvwI/AAAAAAAADc0/f93oXm9sQsc/s1600/hannibal_elephants.jpg]
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
 [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jQPCexYR0Zw/VQxc24l3mYI/AAAAAAAADc8/Fei7BncBEDs/s1600/4729fe56dfc188c6e4b891d3be348949.jpg.png]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
[http://masculineprinciple.blogspot.ca/2015/03/cultural-pillars-and-critical-theory.html],
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. 

 [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0dNGA-FMTe8/VQ2TLSxU87I/AAAAAAAADhM/vgwlNehqWmI/s1600/time-warp.jpg]
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.

 [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9lk9qaf47zE/VQ2UPWhJeHI/AAAAAAAADhU/8WQ7P6nQFRY/s1600/International%2BWomen%27s%2BWorking%2BDay.jpg]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,
[http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/mar/04.htm] 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. 
. 

 [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FWeu8KqL4Sc/VQ2Vjut_1DI/AAAAAAAADhg/UAbTPMr9Eg0/s1600/Blocks.jpg]
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.

 [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-n5Q7yv-RiVU/VQ2V8WNtMdI/AAAAAAAADho/dQOaF8Iv5JI/s1600/keep-abortion-legal-poster.jpg]
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.

 [http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kIqGWctcBi8/VQ2WFuCyFfI/AAAAAAAADhw/XMC-z-jF4KM/s1600/Divorce.jpg]What's
happened is enough people in society have accepted the notion that
divorce is not only normal, but it is a right
[http://masculineprinciple.blogspot.ca/2015/03/the-fraud-of-modern-marriage.html].
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.

 [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--cbMl9ae--8/VQ2Xj2mUmQI/AAAAAAAADh8/xgcUMgP1nf4/s1600/fatherless_children.jpg]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. 
.
 [http://bp3.blogger.com/_JDF20fmuhLY/RfSSAH-ttlI/AAAAAAAAAD0/ECNqRDkJcfc/s1600/sheeple.jpg]"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]  
.
 [http://bp3.blogger.com/_JDF20fmuhLY/RfSSUH-ttmI/AAAAAAAAAD8/2tbH7Ew_jUY/s1600/sheep6_470x350.jpg]"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

 [http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tDSSLaEEP_c/VQxX-xAywyI/AAAAAAAADb8/kBso6mfQsfw/s1600/International%2BWomen%27s%2BWorking%2BDay.jpg]
[http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZGIKH5aTSNc/VQxWo6edk5I/AAAAAAAADbg/2rSUYj8F3Ek/s1600/keep-abortion-legal-poster.jpg]"...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
. 
 [http://bp3.blogger.com/_JDF20fmuhLY/RfSSmH-ttnI/AAAAAAAAAEE/mzWqxTYVkQU/s1600/loadout.jpg]"WE
CAN'T DESTROY THE INEQUITIES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN UNTIL WE DESTROY
MARRIAGE." -- Robin Morgan, Sisterhood is Powerful, 1970, p.537
.
 [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XoOShBj4P18/VQxXK_Cih9I/AAAAAAAADbo/9THL5vwgWlc/s1600/Divorce.jpg]"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
. 
 [http://bp3.blogger.com/_JDF20fmuhLY/RfSS0H-ttoI/AAAAAAAAAEM/3PQTDBImErM/s1600/driving_composite.jpg]"[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

 . 
 [http://bp0.blogger.com/_JDF20fmuhLY/RfSTGX-ttpI/AAAAAAAAAEU/T1x_DCf4HrQ/s1600/f1_10.jpg] 

 "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
. 
 [http://bp3.blogger.com/_JDF20fmuhLY/RfSTkH-ttqI/AAAAAAAAAEc/QFtZ42BQn30/s1600/sheep_154542593.jpg]

. 
 [http://bp1.blogger.com/_JDF20fmuhLY/RfSTwn-ttrI/AAAAAAAAAEk/aqsalupdhRw/s1600/Sharpening.jpg]


 "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)

 .
 [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UnV8Jdx1C9k/VQ2cZf9m_GI/AAAAAAAADiI/0NVWF21LH-c/s1600/dscf0123_021301328.jpg]"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
 [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iJZePpBkju0/VQxXaw0oVWI/AAAAAAAADbw/2MZCYGlkec0/s1600/Blocks.jpg]
"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
.

 [http://bp2.blogger.com/_JDF20fmuhLY/RfSUM3-tttI/AAAAAAAAAE0/5UDXKFbcvDQ/s1600/00028226-6492-1374-B0B50C01AC1BF814.jpg]
[http://bp1.blogger.com/_JDF20fmuhLY/RfSUZn-ttuI/AAAAAAAAAE8/rfhsiK82ZwY/s1600/faroer7.jpg]


  
"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
[http://masculineprinciple.blogspot.ca/2015/03/feminizing-decline.html].
Instead, vast lobby groups of disenfranchised fathers are merely
complaining that they should have "shared-parenting." In other words,
 [http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OlNJS-mUOXg/VQxaPZdrkNI/AAAAAAAADcQ/wAvFZ18rhYM/s1600/Shared%2BParenting.jpg]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?

		
[http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-e_0h1JcOVUE/VQxQGq1UD_I/AAAAAAAADbQ/DJUzmA9imEQ/s1600/Redcurrant_Roast_Lamb.jpg]

		"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.

 [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dSAJwhxNUhg/VQxbC4QMSrI/AAAAAAAADcY/Z79cjB0h0O0/s1600/checkmated2.jpg]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?
[http://masculineprinciple.blogspot.ca/2015/03/cultural-pillars-and-critical-theory.html]
.

.

 PREVIOUS
[http://masculineprinciple.blogspot.ca/2015/03/cultural-pillars-and-critical-theory.html]
/ INDEX
[http://masculineprinciple.blogspot.ca/2015/03/the-masculine-principle-table-of.html]
/ NEXT
[http://masculineprinciple.blogspot.ca/2015/03/the-family-plot.html] .


 [http://masculineprinciple.blogspot.ca/2015/03/the-masculine-principle-table-of.html]
[http://masculineprinciple.blogspot.ca/2015/03/the-masculine-principle-table-of.html]
. 
 
-------------------------
Archived from https://theredarchive.com/blog/The-Masculine-Principle/useful-idiots-play-checkers-marxists-play-chess.33134