Good afternoon comrade! Drink vodka and enjoy your lumpy bread!
Right, so back to business en aw. In the last post, we mulled over Hegel and his dialectic view of history. That truth is now relative, contrary to a cunt like Aristotle. This was a big one, a big cheese, and along side Charles Darwin and The Origin of the Species, the concept of Absolute Truth attributed to God, was being eroded away, again, no doubt exacerbated by the Enlightenment. People like David Hume. What a a sceptical fuckbat.
So Marx stumbled on Hegel's dialectic.
“The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to CHANGE it.”
Marx, being the rich kid loser, like all rich kid losers, wanted to change the world, and to do that, he would need a bit of help from Hegel. There are a few key differences here. First, Hegel was an idealist. He believed that in order for any thinking person to know an object, he had to possess the idea of it first. Marx meanwhile, was the opposite. He was a materialist. He believed that ideas originated from the material world. So, if you look at the previous example I used of the thesis/antithesis/synthesis example I used, you'll see it as an idealist dialectic. Marx thought it was built on material conditions and often, economic affairs.
Now, the most important part. Hegel thought that the antithesis arose naturally and stopped there. He thought history would continue onward and onwards into infinity. Marx said, "right, so if I want these fuckos taking the old self seriously, how can I change the world?"
First, you give history an endgame. Make it so that history will converge to a classless society run by the workers, the hard working proletariat. Second, you don't actually have to wait for the antithesis to arise naturally. You can make the fucking thing up to suit your own needs, irrespective of the natural law. You can make up the synthesis, how many steps ahead, and then, YOU, YOU make up your antithesis so that you get your synthesis. It's like a maths problem, only you work backwards and there's gangrene on the limb.
So to cement this idea, let's say you want your synthesis to be that the nuclear family is eroded.
Synthesis I want: Messed up nuclear family. (The family is a product of capitalism)
Antithesis I need to get it, that I need to make up: Crap writers like Simone De Beauvoir. Feminism. No fault divorce. Baby Boomer retards.
Thesis: Happy nuclear family.
Now, let's look at this from a Men's Right perspective.
Synthesis I want: Classless Society run by the government where men and women are equal and The State calls the shots. This is advocated by TEH EVENT.
Antithesis I need to make up to get this: Giving both men and women equal control over the child. Pissy, wimpy, effeminate MRAs are fucking delighted with this.
Thesis: No fault divorce. Men pissed off. Nuclear family gone to the shitter.
What is TEH EVENT?
I'm going to use another example, using Ireland. Despite having one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world, the whole country got a shock when a couple of months ago, an Indian woman called Savita Halappanawar died from being denied an abortion. Was this a sad tragedy? Yes it was. In the aftermath, there's been a mad old rush to allow abortion, and the inevitable swarm of pro lifers and pro abortion. From one sad death with a infinitesimal probability of ocurring. My point is, is that if the Men's Rights Bozos achieve their goal, then it will take ONE event, to make it an event of pure, sick horror. It will take some fucked up family with equal custody raping their kids or whatever, and then people are scared, demanding government intervention so that this TRAGEDY never happens again.
And I say to myself, what a wonderful world!
More to come in this series.