Dialectic 

The dialectic isn't an aspect of Marxism, it is the aspect of Marxism.

The Platonic Nightmare, Joseph Pieper, who explained in Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power that first you have to take control of the language and abuse language, and it's through that that you abuse power.  And he called it the Platonic Nightmare in a way that everybody else thanks that's interesting and I'm not talking about being interesting I'm talking about what he called the platonic nightmare it is the basis on which everything you see drives what you're saying so much so that I'm really going to be taking quotes from leading marxists and show that they specifically point to events that happened in these dialogues and you can read these platonic dialogues and say I don't agree with that interpretation and I won't get into whether those interpretations are correct or not because really all I have to prove is that the people we are up against are all focus on these dialogues and they have a common understanding of what they mean so even if they're wrong in some larger sense they're still correct in the sense that they all have a common sight picture and for people who know what I did when I did it Islamic law in the Pentagon until I was pushed out because some Brotherhood Associates didn't want me there is I was able to show that no matter whether you were a quote moderate Muslim whether you were a Jihadi in the field or whether you were somewhere in between everything they would say was based on what it meant by a book by Sayyid Qutb, 1906-1966, who wrote the book Milestones, 1964,  and so all you had to do was listen to what they said by the Quran quotes that interpreted them 

To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad is the unclassified thesis submitted by Major Stephen Coughlin, Military Intelligence, USAR, NDIC Class 2007 to the faculty of the National Defense Intelligence College in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Science of Strategic Intelligence, July 2007.

KRZYSZTOF SZCZAWINSKI: The tyrant’s problem is the citizen. The citizen has history, has roots, has pre-existing loyalties to the republic that predate the tyrant and do not depend on him. He has opinions. He remembers what things were like before. He has standing to compare. The foreigner — admitted suddenly, dependent on the system that admitted him, owing his position to the current arrangement — enters with none of that.

https://t.co/GrKoG7tgrO https://t.co/gK8ddlPzu2

— Krzysztof Szczawinski 🇵🇱 (@Kristof_Poland) July 16, 2026

Two quotes, twenty-one centuries apart, describing the same mechanism. Aristotle first: “Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one are enemies, but the others enter into no rivalry with him.” Jefferson second: “To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens would be nothing less than to admit the Trojan horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.” Read them together and the argument assembles itself. The tyrant’s problem is the citizen. The citizen has history, has roots, has pre-existing loyalties to the republic that predate the tyrant and do not depend on him. He has opinions. He remembers what things were like before. He has standing to compare. The foreigner — admitted suddenly, dependent on the system that admitted him, owing his position to the current arrangement — enters with none of that. He is grateful rather than demanding. Dependent rather than sovereign. The tyrant does not prefer foreigners because he is cosmopolitan. He prefers them because they cannot yet rival him. Loyalty purchased through admission is more reliable than loyalty inherited through citizenship. Jefferson names the mechanism from the other end: indiscriminate admission is not generosity. It is the Trojan Horse – the gift that enters through the open gate precisely because the gate is open, bypassing every defense the citadel was built to maintain. The horse is welcomed in. The soldiers emerge at night. The citadel falls not to siege but to hospitality weaponized. Neither man was against foreigners. Both were against the political use of admission – the deliberate flooding of the civic space with people whose loyalties are unformed, whose dependencies are fresh, and whose gratitude can be directed. Aristotle observed it as a tyrant’s tool. Jefferson warned against it as a republic’s vulnerability. Both understood that a self-governing people requires a demos with shared history, shared stakes, and shared accountability – and that a ruler who bypasses the formation of that demos is not building a nation. He is building a tyranny.

And the Trojan Horse didn’t need to breach the walls. The citizens opened the gates. And then it was just administration.