By Paul Collier, Editor
Read part one here.
In the first part of this report, we breezed through the emergence of modern political reality, culminating in Jacque Rousseau, whose central idea was this; the individual is only free if the individual is in harmony with a new social man that breaks down the traditions that bind men, born free, in chains.
This notion is not new to Rousseau, though his writings were what made such a notion acceptable in polite society, at least in the European West. What follows from this notion is Marxism, the next great sophistic justification for sacrificing children for the good of the whole.
From Marxism, variations of Marxism emerge, culminating in current year with post-structuralist thought centered around the notion that the minority in any institutional sense (be it race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identification) is the preferred class that has been artificially diminished by systemic oppression. This requires a complete dismantling of what is to make room for the new ideal conditions for the collective social man to flourish, ushering in true equity and social justice for all who fall into one of the preferred classes.
This part of our report will begin documenting the early Marxist assumptions regarding the nature of the “nuclear family,” one of the major impediments to the dream of ensuring every child is given the exact same social DNA to ensure the collective social man becomes reality. From there, we’ll leap forward to the 1960s, with the emergence of post-structuralism, most fully recognized by the often leftist-claimed father of post-structuralism, Michel Foucault.
We’ll show the commonly shared belief among these thinkers to not only countenance, but engage in pedophilic activity, bearing the fruit of the pedophilic spirit this ideology requires and cultivates to make its stated dreams come true.
Finally, we’ll bring you to current year and the efforts by the Democratic Party, or the DNC (Democratic National Committee), to force a post-structuralist ideology on the Constitutional Republic of America, despite the fact that post-structuralism and individual liberty, individual sacredness, are existentially at odds with one another.
Marxism derives its name from Karl Marx who, along with his sponsor and partner Friedrich Engels, convinced a whole mass of people to reject the sacredness of the individual and embrace the sacredness of a very specific collective to be defined by the party elite and imposed by violence on all who find themselves within their authoritarian control. In order to get there, and to keep it going, these same party elites needed to control the thoughts and intentions of the next generation, the children, by any means necessary, for the good of the whole. This is reflected from the start in the Marxist view of the family.
1. MARX AND THE FAMILY – From revisesociology.com:
“Marxism is a ‘structural conflict’ perspective. They see society as structured along class lines with institutions generally working in the interests of the small elite class who have economic power (the ‘Bourgeoisie’) and the much larger working class (the ‘Proletariat’). The Bourgeoise gain their wealth from exploiting the proletariat. There is thus a conflict of interests between the Bourgeoise and the Proletariat.
However, this conflict of interests rarely boils over into revolution because institutions such as the family perform the function of ‘ideological control,’ or convincing the masses that the present unequal system is inevitable, natural, and good.”
Engels erroneously asserted that the nuclear family and monogamous marriage only existed as capitalism took form. To Engels, and the Left in general at that time, the nuclear family and monogamous marriage were symbols of systemic oppression, perpetuating hierarchies that needed to be torn down to bring about equality and justice for all.
Karl Marx made it clear in the Communist Manifesto of 1848 his intentions to abolish the family. To Marx, the family was simply “money relations” intended to preserve bourgeoise power and make the proletariat complicit in their own enslavement. He promised his audience that through Communism, children would be freed from the bourgeoise indoctrination of their parents. They would be educated by the State, run by the enlightened elites as designated by the Communist Party. He said communists would “rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.”
“…. What it seems to me Marx and Engels were trying to do was to explain the origins of women’s oppression, to point to societies where this oppression did not at one time exist, and to look towards a future society where again it would be a thing of the past. This is why both were concerned with how monogamy developed, with who controlled the children in any particular society, and with what work became identified with certain positions. It is this general approach which makes Origin of the Family such an important book, whatever its weaknesses, and which allows us to use this general approach to understand strategies for ending women’s oppression today.”
To buoy this claim, the writer adds this quote which the writer, Lindsey German, asserts is their translation: “Abolition of the family! The bourgeois family will disappear, in the course [of history] as its supplement [private property] disappears, and both will vanish with the destruction of capital.” – The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2, Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels.
Roughly 50 years after the death of Marx, ideologues would take his anti-family, pro-grooming ideas and put them to flesh, with two early examples standing out, one which would last for 70 years and one which would last for 133 days.
2. RUSSIA’S INCREMENTAL MARXISM – From Heritage.org, “…. As soon as they won their first victory, in Russia in 1917, the communists now in power put into practice these policies. Alexandra Kollontai, the Soviet’s first People’s Commissar for Welfare, put it succinctly when she wrote, ‘The old family, narrow and petty, where the parents quarrel and are only interested in their own offspring, is not capable of educating the “new person.”’ Soviet schools even encouraged students to snitch on their parents.”
The revolutionaries of Russia did not aggressively end the family unit, though they did everything they could to discourage it. This move alone might explain why their experiment lasted 70 years, while another experiment, in Hungary, lasted only 133 days. However, one of the architects of the Russian Revolution, Leon Trotsky, would later claim that the reason for the failure of the revolution to produce a true communist utopia was because they DIDN’T aggressively work to eliminate the family.
3. HUNGARY’S “SOCIALISM NOW” – In 1919, another communist revolution successfully overthrew the existing power, setting to flesh the ideas born in Rousseau and flushed out in Marx and Engels. This time, they would seek to use the model of the French Revolution, which attempted to immediately, and by force, implement a completely new social order that fully destroyed the old social order. The French Revolutionaries even changed the week from 7 days to 10 days, but with 10 days being 10 hours, which are now 100 minutes, with minutes now being 100 seconds.
“…. But it didn’t stop with Marx and Engels. Hungarian communists managed to establish a Hungarian soviet for a short time in 1919. They quickly realized that the way to completely change society was to destroy the most important civil society institution, the family. Its culture and education commissar, George Lukacs, therefore instituted a system to instruct young children into sexual perversions.
Lukacs’s biographer described it this way: ‘Special lectures were organized in schools and literature printed and distributed to “instruct” children about free love, about the nature of sexual intercourse, about the archaic nature of bourgeois family codes, about the outdatedness of monogamy, and the irrelevance of religion, which deprives man of all pleasure. Children urged thus to reject and deride paternal authority and the authority of the church, and to ignore precepts of morality.’”
If this doesn’t sound like America’s current year school curriculum, you’re not paying attention.
The Socialist Federative Republic of Councils of Hungary lasted from March 21, 1919, to August 1919, 133 Days. Its failure was mostly its aggressive efforts to abolish all existing institutions, especially the family, faster than the people could accept.
“In reality, the peasantry, because of the entire mode of existence and role in production, is the social class least capable of developing a collective consciousness. Some of the Hungarian Communists seemed to grasp this fact better than Bela Kun. In an article published in the first issue of Communist International:
Laszlo Rudas pointed out that the poor and middle class peasant was ‘in the best of cases indifferent to the fate of the dictatorship of the proletariat.’
…. In 133 days of its existence, the soviet republic issued no fewer than 531 decrees. If revolutions were won and lost on the strength of paperwork, the Hungarian workers would never have lost. Unfortunately for Bela Kun, the reaction fought with real bullets, not paper ones.”
They concluded, “But the idea of the Hungarian CP leaders of introducing ‘socialism now’ without taking due care and consideration for the problem of the transition between capitalism and socialism caused serious difficulties.”
Marxist.com declares the purpose of their site on their header, “In Defense of Marxism,” so what you’re seeing in these quotes is Marxists interpreting their own ideology, making it clear that the family is anathema to their dystopian fantasies.
THE DNC’S VEHICLE OF POWER: POST-STRUCTURALISM
We will not go down the rabbit hole of the underlying epistemological assumptions of post-structuralism in this report. We are more interested in the conclusions post-structuralism comes to in relation to children and the family. An article in Evie Magazine by S.G. Cheah summarizes well the spirit and intent of post-structuralism as it relates to children and the family:
“At the root of postmodernism lies the subjectivity of values. Nothing is objectively right or wrong. Human morality is merely a social construct. And since society’s moral standards are merely constructed by the status quo, it’s imperative that we deconstruct social structures. This movement is known as ‘Poststructuralism’ or ‘Deconstructionist’ in academic circles. A real-life version of this that you might have encountered is ‘Down with systemic racism in America!’
…. This is how a postmodernist thinks: Since everything is subjective to a person’s experience, feelings, and consciousness, then nothing can be objectively sacred. Childhood innocence, for example, is just a social construct. Since different people have different opinions about ‘childhood sexuality,’ who are we to judge what’s right or wrong?
But worse than just being ambiguous about cultural standards is how the postmodernist-deconstructionist movement is actually promoting the destruction of universally accepted values. They see this as ‘challenging the hegemony of power.’ Because the dominant hegemony of society’s sexual morality lies in ‘traditional patriarchal values,’ these radical intellectuals believe that sexual desires can be utilized as a revolutionary force in politics.
…. According to an article written by a women’s rights activist with extensive expertise on the subject, the promotion of pedophilia is encouraged because: ‘Transgression of norms, and in particular sexual norms, became the only response to punishment and classification, which would, in Foucauldian thinking, challenge oppression and power’.”
1. THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 2.0 – In May 1968, a French Revolution of sorts was taking place, led by the academic classes, specifically, but not exclusively by the students. As part of that revolution, the thought leaders called for the reduction, if not outright abolishment, of age of sexual consent laws. The mantra of the time was “It is Forbidden to Forbid,” which is, of course, a self-refuting statement. It culminated in a leftist-led petition in 1977 to end various laws that addressed the notion of an age of consent.
“According to Zizek (2018), in 1968, ‘the French “progressive’ press published a series of petitions demanding the decriminalization of pedophilia, claiming that this would abolish the artificial and oppressive culturally constructed frontier that separates children from adults, and would extend to children the right to freely dispose with one’s body’ (p.127). Among the people who signed these petitions, there were Michel Foucault, Simone de Beauvoir, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Jacques Derrida.
In addition, in 1977 ‘he contemplated the idea that rapists should be punished only for a crime of violence, and not for a sex crime’ (Taylor, 2009, p.1), and he added that sexuality cannot be the object of punishment under any circumstances (Cahill, 2000).”
Wikipedia, a bastion of leftist thought itself, described the efforts of the 1977 petition to end age of consent laws like this:
“In 1977, a petition was addressed to the French parliament calling for the abrogation of several articles of the age of consent law. A number of French intellectuals – including Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Derrida, Louis Aragon, Roland Barthes, Simone de Beauvoir, Jean-Paul Sartre, Félix Guattari, Michel Leiris, Alain Robbe-Grillet, Philippe Sollers, Jacques Rancière, Jean-François Lyotard, Francis Ponge, Bernard Besret [fr] and various prominent doctors and psychologists – signed the petition. In 1979 two open letters were published in French newspapers defending individuals arrested under charges of statutory rape, in the context of reformation of age of consent laws.
Many of the signatories – including, but not limited to, Foucault, Danet, and Hocquenghem – later argued in favor of legalizing sex with children, claiming a child can consent – ‘listen to what the child says and give it a certain credence. This notion of consent is a trap, in any case. What is sure is that the legal form of an intersexual consent is nonsense. No one signs a contract before making love.’ The same year, Michel Foucault presented to the Commission for the Revision of the Penal Code to equalize and lower the age of consent to 13. In 1977 and 1979, two open letters were published in French newspapers defending individuals arrested under charges of statutory rape. In 1977, another petition was addressed to the French parliament calling for the abrogation of several articles of the age of consent law. The laws were considered an infringement on the sexual autonomy of children’.”]
THE FOUNDERS OF THE CURRENT-YEAR DNC
The post-structuralist thought leaders of France would soon cast their de-humanizing vision to America’s shores, to be picked up by such leftist “heroes” as Judith Butler, Angela Davis, and Judith Levine. They would build the current-year vehicle of power now being implemented by the Democratic Party (the DNC) and its market vassals. For some of them, including the most important thought leader of them all, Michel Foucault, not only did they champion decriminalizing pedophilia, but they also engaged in it themselves.
1. MICHEL FOUCAULT – Michel Foucault not only advocated for legalizing the sexualization of children by adults, but he also practiced it himself. Allegedly, Foucault engaged in sexual relations with boys as young as 10 in Tunis, Tunisia, in May of 1968, which he described as his great turning point. He said, “Tunisia, for me, represented in some ways the chance to reinsert myself in the political debate. It wasn’t May of ’68 in France that changed me; it was March of ’68, in a third-world country.”
French essayist Guy Sorman claimed on a French Public TV Channel that he “witnessed what Foucault did with young children in Tunisia…. Ignoble things. The possibility of consent could not be sought. These were things of extreme moral ugliness.”
2. JUDITH BUTLER – From devislane.com:
“…. One disciple of Foucault is specifically prevalent in our own era: lesbian Marxist Gender Studies matriarch Judith Butler. Adjacent to trans activist (and former chemist) ‘Julia’ Serano, she is credited with having developed the sociology offshoot of ‘Queer Theory’ which merged with ‘Women’s Studies’ (i.e., Critical Theory and Feminism), which has produced the monster of ‘Gender Studies’.
…. ‘If the immutable character of sex is contested, perhaps this construct called ‘sex’ is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps it was always already gender, with the consequence that the distinction between sex and gender turns out to be no distinction at all.’
…. Butler is the author of ‘Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity’ (1990), which has its thesis one of the dumbest ideas yet, formed as the bastard child of Freud, de Beauvoir, Lacan, Derrida, and St Foucault. That idea being biological sex, gender, and sexuality are involuntary ‘performances’ over time coerced from ‘disciplinary’ techniques, rather than anything to do with human biology’.”
Judith Butler is the precursor to Robin DiAngelo, author of one of the DNC’s sacred texts, White Guilt.
3. FROM FOUCAULT TO ANGELA DAVIS – From Frontpagemag.com:
“When Angela Davis, a domestic terrorist, wrote, ‘Racialized Punishment and Prison Abolition’, she began by extensively citing an ex-Marxist French philosopher. ‘Michel Foucault’s “Discipline and Punish” is arguably the most influential text in contemporary studies of the prison system,’ she argued while crediting herself with an analysis of the ‘racial implications’ of his ideas.
There is a straight line that runs from Foucault and Davis to the ‘prison abolition’ movement that, in its mildest form, encompasses police defunding and reducing penalties for offenses and diverting criminals away from prison, and to proposals like Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s BREATHE Act that would create a ‘roadmap for prison abolition,’ with the ‘full decarceration of federal detention facilities within 10 years’.
While black nationalists are more likely to cite Davis and other black nationalists, she and leftist intellectuals very clearly credited Foucault and his Marxist analyses of criminal justice. Neither group tends to mention that aside from leftist extremism, Foucault was also a pedophile.”
4. JUDITH LEVINE – From The Public Discourse:
“The publication of Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex promised readers a ‘radical, refreshing, and long overdue reassessment of how we think and act about children’s and teens’ sexuality.’ The book was published by University of Minnesota Press in 2003 (with a foreword by Joycelyn Elders, who had been the U.S. Surgeon General in the Clinton administration), after which the author, Judith Levine, posted an interview on the university’s website decrying the fact that ‘there are people pushing a conservative religious agenda that would deny minors access to sexual expression,’ and adding that ‘we do have to protect children from real dangers … but that doesn’t mean protecting some fantasy of their sexual innocence.’
This redefinition of childhood innocence as ‘fantasy’ is key to the defining down of the deviance of pedophilia that permeated college campuses and beyond. Drawing upon the language of postmodern theory, those working to redefine pedophilia are first redefining childhood by claiming that ‘childhood’ is not a biological given. Rather, it is socially constructed – a historically produced social object. Such deconstruction has resulted from the efforts of a powerful advocacy community supported by university-affiliated scholars and a large number of writers, researchers, and publishers who were willing to question what most of us view as taboo behavior.”
POST-STRUCTURALISM MADE FLESH
In the January 2023 Edition of MIA, on page 20, Joshua Bontrager did a report called “DNC AMERICA: THE EVIL, UNRESTRICTED WAR ON OUR CHILDREN,” in which he outlined some of the ways the DNC was essentially bringing post-structuralist thought to flesh, directly assaulting American children and their parents using every means of market and state coercion they can bring to bear.
He says in his conclusion:
“What must be done? First, parents must take back responsibility and be willing to make serious sacrifices for the sake of their children. We cannot simply point fingers at the social engineers without acknowledging our own complicity.
Are we trapped by political correctness and comfort? Do we care enough about saving our children to invest the love, time, money, and energy required to raise them to be warriors for truth? Second, parents must opt out of every leftist institution that is destroying their children.
TikTok is not your friend. Disney is not your friend. American Girl is not your friend. The government schools are not your friend. The social engineers (aka, ‘experts’) are not your friends, and they do not believe that your child has any humanity. To them, your child is nothing more than a lab rat upon which to be socially experimented and ultimately discarded.
We must refuse to be part of the corrupt system that is destroying our children (i.e., government schools, social media, Disney, etc.). We must also dedicate ourselves to creating good culture within our own homes that can withstand bad culture.
Third, legislators must step up, and parents must stand right beside them. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, and U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene (R-GA) have all shown courageous leadership in this fight.
Last, we must never be ashamed to call out evil for what it is and to stand for children, who are most vulnerable. We must not care what the other side calls us or thinks of us.
They hate us simply because we stand for truth, justice, and purity. We must understand what evil actually is and call it by its name.
As noted in the May 2022 MIA, ‘What has become an open agenda of grooming and child abuse will only accelerate…in all of today’s woke institutions – academia, law, politics, art, Hollywood, media, social media, and corporate America. These institutions will continue to destroy American kids and turn them against everything that our Founders stood for, unless parents wake up and take back responsibility for educating and discipling their own children.’
The most powerful thing a concerned parent can do is to simply exit the DNC’s corrupt cultural system and disciple their children to love, live, and proclaim the truth. The war against the DNC can be won, one parent at a time.”
This writer believes that the current paradigm being followed by the DNC is increasingly closer to the failed Hungarian revolutionary model rather than the incremental assault on family the Russians chose to utilize.
The pushback long predicted seems to finally have arrived, with two of the DNC’s powerful market vassals, Anheuser Busch and Target, losing billions in market value after aggressively pushing post-structuralist ideology through their product marketing, with Target specifically targeting children for this perverse indoctrination.
The DNC’s success in capturing most of the major public and private institutions of America might also lead to its downfall, as the perception of potential accountability for their actions has largely disappeared, leaving them vulnerable to their will to perceive the world and its actors a certain way versus the actual reality of power they find themselves facing. In their minds, only the far-right fringe still wants traditional monogamous marriage, parents’ rights, and the nuclear family unit. They can’t begin to fathom how wrong they are in their echo chambers.
Just as the Hungarian experiment went too far too fast to hold together, so too will the efforts of the DNC be unable to hold together. Their dream to shatter the constitutional republic of America using this not-so-concealing trojan horse we call “Woketarianism” (which is the current manifestation of post-structuralist thought being utilized by the DNC and its market vassals) might or might not succeed in shattering our republic, but it won’t be the new ruling authority when the dust finally settles.
We are in a liminal period in human history, between what was and what might come to replace it. An old civilization is dying. The age of the enlightenment is found wanting, as are the antithetical developments of enlightenment thought, as reflected in today’s DNC-deployed Woketarianism.
What comes next is less certain than this; the Woketarian experiment will not survive as a viable vehicle of power in what’s to come. Still, as surely as this spirit, the pedophilic spirit, existed long before Woketarianism, it will exist long after it is put to rest, should the Lord tarry.
Instead, it will take up new terms while it waits for new opportunities to exploit the plea of the needy for their de-humanizing political ends.
So long as humans seek to be gods rather than pursue understanding and becoming more like God, in humility and not in pride, the pedophilic spirit that has infested many civilizations before ours (and now including ours) will continue to loom as a threat to the sacredness of the individual as represented in the way we treat the most vulnerable in our society, our children, starting from the ones forming in the wombs of Mothers.
Read part one here.