Occasionally in conversations with the willing about the nature of Communism, and how Western leaders are doing these things to us, and ultimately WHY they are doing these things to us, simply answering with teh word dialectics, is punishing the victim. Interestingly, that is actually not just the right answer, but why in fact these things are being done to the people of the formerly free west.
Below is a short excerpt from the Gulag Archipelago, where the reasoning of the torturers themselves is explained. By now it should appear familiar to all. Not just the sophisticated in the methods of the left, but all in the West who have observed what is being done to them with great bewilderment and horror, and shouted about as hypocrisy or corruption. It is of course neither. Corruption is a means to an ends. A way in which the temple can be torn down by destroying the systems that keep it up. But the goal, the telos, is the destruction of the temple. How is merely tactics.
The segment from the Gulag Archipelago:
It would also be incorrect to ascribe to 1937 the “discovery”
that the personal confession of an accused person was more im-
portant than any other kind of proof or facts. This concept had
already been formulated in the twenties. And 1937 was just
the year when the brilliant teaching of Vyshinsky came into its
own. Incidentally, even at that time, his teaching was transmitted
only to interrogators and prosecutors-for the sake of their
morale and steadfastness. The rest of us only learned about it
twenty years later-when it had already come into disfavor-
through subordinate clauses and minor paragraphs of newspaper
articles, which treated the subject as if it had long been widely
known to all.
It turns out that in that terrible year Andrei Yanuaryevich
(one longs to blurt out, “Jaguaryevich”) Vyshinsky, availing
himself of the most flexible dialectics (of a sort nowadays not
permitted either Soviet citizens or electronic calculators, since to
them yes is yes and no is no), pointed out in a report which
became famous in certain circles that it is never possible for
The Interrogation 101 mortal men to establish absolute truth, but relative truth only.
He then proceeded to a further step, which jurists of the last two
thousand years had not been willing to take: that the truth estab-
lished by interrogation and trial could not be absolute, but only,
so to speak, relative.
Therefore, when we sign a sentence ordering
someone to be shot we can never be absolutely certain, but only
approximately, in view of certain hypotheses, and in a certain
sense, that we are punishing a guilty person.
Thence arose the
most practical conclusion: that it was useless to seek absolute
evidence–for evidence is always relative-or unchallengeable
witnesses-for they can say different things at different times.
The proofs of guilt were relative, approximate, and the interro-
gator could find them, even when there was no evidence and no
witness, without leaving his office, “basing his conclusions not
only on his own intellect but also on his Party sensitivity,
his moral forces” (in other words, the superiority of someone who
has slept well, has been well fed, and has not been beaten up)
“and on his character” (Le., his willingness to apply cruelty!).
Of course, this formulation was much more elegant than
Latsis’ instructions. But the essence of both was the same.
In only one respect did Vyshinsky fail to be consistent and
retreat from dialectical logic: for some reason, the executioner’s
bullet which he allowed was not relative but absolute . …
Thus it was that the conclusions of advanced Soviet jurispru-
dence, proceeding in a spiral, returned to barbaric or medieval
standards. Like medieval torturers, our interrogators, prosecutors,
and judges agreed to accept the confession of the accused as the
chief proof of guilt.
However, the simple-minded Middle Ages used dramatic and picturesque methods to squeeze out the desired confessions: the
rack, the wheel, the bed of nails, impalement, hot coals, etc. In
the twentieth century, taking advantage of our more highly de-
veloped medical knowledge and extensive prison experience (and
someone seriously defended a doctoral dissertation on this
theme), people came to realize that the accumulation of such
impressive apparatus was superfluous and that, on a mass scale,
it was also cumbersome. And in addition . . .
In addition, there was evidently one other circumstance. As
always, Stalin did not pronounce that final word, and his sub-
ordinates had to guess what he wanted. Thus, like a jackal, he left
himself an escape hole, so that he could, if he wanted, beat a
retreat and write about “dizziness from success.” After all, for
the first time in human history the calculated torture of millions
was being undertaken, and, even with all his strength and power,
Stalin could not be absolutely sure of success.
In dealing with such an enormous mass of material, the effects of the experiment
might differ from those obtained from a smaller sample. An un-
foreseen explosion might take place, a slippage in a geological
fault, or even world-wide disclosure. In any case, Stalin had to
remain innocent, his sacred vestments angelically pure.
We are therefore forced to conclude that no list of tortures
and torments existed in printed form for the guidance of interro-
gators! Instead, all that was required was for every Interrogation
Department to supply the tribunal within a specified period with
a stipulated number of rabbits who had confessed everything.
And it was simply stated, orally but often, that any measures and
means employed were good, since they were being used for a
.lofty purpose; that no interrogator would be made to answer for
the death of an accused; and that the prison doctor should inter-
fere as little as possible with the course of the investigation.
So from all this it becomes clear that moral and cultural relativism was a dialectic we can all see was launched on the West to destroy our sacred beliefs and the value of ourselves as a people and a culture. We also see how doctors where made to follow state narratives on Covid, the vaxx, and now MAiD in an ends justifies the means moral relativistic framework which cedes massive amounts of power to the state which it should never, ever have.
And continues to agglomerate by the month across Western Europe and Canada.
