They see this alleged patriarchal conspiracy in capitalism, in individual endeavors of self improvement, acts of personal responsibility, in music, fashion, private schooling, in science, in heterosexual relationships, in marriage, in childbirth, in common law, in religion, in all forms of business and commerce. Indeed, the patriarchy is everywhere and the only solution, as they see it, is the creation of a Marxist matriarchal paradise.
The problem for these heavily left-leaning activists is how to bring about a matriarchal Marxist state, or at the very least the trappings of a matriarchy, when the population will not vote, and show no intention of voting for such a form of government?
Armed uprising, once the Marxist-revolutionary method of choice, is unlikely to prevail in a western democracy. Historically such uprisings have required a majority peasant population before any likelihood of success can be assured. But many Marxist authors and revolutionaries wrote, and described in exhaustive detail, how to undermine the body politic of the democratic state. By such methods a democracy can be rendered industrially and socially unworkable to such a degree that a Marxist/matriarchal government becomes morally acceptable to the masses, if not an inevitable extension of the forced and engineered malaise.
If we consider the ever increasing number of "social" laws enacted over the past thirty years, particularly family law, child protection laws, rape laws, and domestic violence laws, we see an unmistakable trend. That is, for an accuser, evidence is not required once they claim they are a "victim." Common law, which affords anyone basic legal protections against false, malicious, or spiteful allegations to anyone accused of a crime, has been suspended and replaced by a form of arbitrary administrative social law. Judicial and quasi-judicial appointments to such social specialist courts as may hear these matters consists of known ideologues and confirmed activists.
In many instances the law has quietly been altered to impose an absolute burden of proof of innocence on the accused, while the accuser, or "victim," requires merely an unsupported allegation, or basic circumstantial probability, for legal proceedings to commence. If juries prove reluctant, or are expected to balk at convicting on flimsy evidence, then a jury is dispensed with and virtual star chamber courts are put in their place where legal outcomes, as in all politicized courts, become impossibly consistent.
To gain the acquiescence of, or to bypass the potential ire of the largely unwitting public to such a remarkable reversal of basic common law protections, taxpayer dollars are lavished on moral panic propaganda. Such "advocacy research" is based on various combinations of utter fabrications, unique and highly selective sampling, or impoverished worst-case, third-world social statistics deceitfully passed off as valid research data.
This unrelenting campaign of taxpayer-funded, moral-panic propaganda seeks to justify itself on the grounds of necessity, and presents a facade of virtue, the suspension of civil rights and basic constitutional legal protections of citizens within the pariah group that the propaganda targets. That is, those accused are automatically guilty, and those within the trumped-up pariah group are all suspects whose legal rights can be withdrawn at the arbitrary whim of the State or star-chamber courts.
Accordingly, the left-wing media give the public barely a moments rest from an ideological onslaught that informs us we are surrounded by pedophiles, child abusers, wife bashers, violent murderers, rapists, and so on. Indeed, the imagination of such socialist-activists is the only limit to the amount of social crimes that can be, and that are being committed in their fevered brains. To support their rabid ranting the frequency and magnitude of these "crimes" is constantly expanded by "advocacy research."
Left-wing ideological fanatics invariably justify their views and positions by invoking three thought processes unique to their unrivaled methods of reasoning in which logic, reality, and facts are not only an inconvenience but are, in themselves, dismissed as methods of oppression by the patriarchy.
First is the socialist collective. This permits activists to use the "if one is, then all are" type of collective rationale. But this is a rationale they will only apply in the negative. That is, if one worker is mistreated then all workers are, if one child is abused then all are, if one person is murdered then everyone will be murdered, and so on.
The second is also based on the socialist-marxist theory of absolute outcomes. That is, if one wife is subject to violence, then all wives are subject to violence. Therefore, all wives must be protected. To do so, all citizens must be regulated, watched, monitored, and arbitrarily detained or tried if the absolute outcome is to be achieved.
The third, and vital underpinning of this triangular rationale, is where the left-wing activists ideologically and simplistically divide society into victims and oppressors. In their world of ideological absolutes there are only the two classes.
The oppressor class, and therefore by ideological default, the child abusers, wife beaters, etc., are, according to extreme feminist theory, all heterosexual, primarily Anglo-Saxon, men, and fathers who support the patriarchy. Indeed, so extreme are the views of some of these activists that they would have us believe that all Anglo-Saxon heterosexual men are either currently batterers, have been batterers, will soon be batterers, or are in some form of rigorous training by the patriarchy so they can become batterers.
Those in the "victim" class cannot be guilty of any social crime because they do not meet the ideological profile. The dogma of these fanatics, in itself, ensures guilt of the oppressor, or innocence for the oppressed "victim" class, by ideological predestination.
The extremity of these views, and the associated propaganda barrage, might cause rational individuals to examine the social make up of these extremist groups. It may therefore come as no surprise to reasonable and sensible observers that these activist groups primarily consist of women, and women who have chosen not to lead a heterosexual lifestyle. Additionally, many of these women are academics whose strident Marxist/matriarchal views are a matter of record.
Whilst these radicals are free to squander taxpayer's dollars on propaganda they pass off as research, the rest of the population dare not criticize them or raise a murmur for fear of venomous retaliation. These activists can, and do, hide behind absurdly one-sided vilification laws, and shrilly accuse all who question them of homophobia. These ideologues are thus free to wreak social destruction without the slightest scrutiny and our pandering politicians assist and fund them.
The activist's agenda of strangling the heterosexual family unit may be considered as remote, or even fanciful, by the reasonable observer. However, at the dawn of the Third Millennium, democratic governments are literally falling over themselves in their rush to frantically legislate not only in the area of gay and lesbian issues, but in removing the legal rights and protections of heterosexual men, and particularly fathers, at an astonishing rate.
The hysterical, moral high ground claimed for these grotesque acts of trampling on our civil liberties are that we are in the middle of an epidemic of male- and father-perpetrated abuse based on the patriarchy, and that all fathers are child abusers and pedophiles. Therefore, the general population must be protected from them at any cost. Because their propaganda says all patriarchal, heterosexual men are batterers, then they are pariahs who are beyond the pale and do not deserve legal rights.
Should our civilization somehow survive, it will truly astound historians in years hence that the eradication of the rule of law, the heterosexual family unit, and the elimination of the legal rights of heterosexual men and fathers was legislatively achieved by politicians who are charged with upholding the very laws they were charged to uphold. Incredibly, these politicians were themselves mostly heterosexual men and fathers pursuing the gay/lesbian vote and the vote of women with "self esteem" issues and incapable of stable relationships.