Skip to comments.GRAMSCIAN METHODS
Posted on 09/05/2002 4:07:07 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Just how do you go about attempting to change a culture which has apparently been inextricably interwoven with Christianity for some 2000 years? Gramsci recognized that it would be necessary to do so before the Marxist-socialists could have any hope of instituting their New World Order. (No, President George Bush and Brent Scowcroft did NOT invent that term!)
Before Antonio Gramsci, the traditional Marxist-Leninist attitude had been hostile to all non-Communist organizations, even though those organizations might, themselves, be considered leftist such as trade unions, socialist groups, etc. Gramscis methods have brought about a very broad coalition of such diverse groups as civil rights organizations, radical feminists, internationalists, homosexuals, radical environmentalists, anti-police agitators, a bewildering assortment of ultra liberal church groups of many different faiths, etc. Working together these disparate elements have formed a united front working to transform our once solidly Judeo-Christian culture into a mere shadow of its former self.
Gramsci taught that they must achieve a cultural hegemony even before achieving governmental power. He believed that Marxists must win the hearts and minds of people without their knowledge.
He went further and told the Communists that they must abandon their idea of class hatred and work to win over elements in the very bourgeois classes that they wished to subvert. He described this as the absorption of the elites of the enemy classes. He recognized that by recruiting the best and brightest of their enemies, they would not only gain new strength for their side, but would at the same time deprive the bourgeois societies of their natural leaders.
To achieve these ends, Gramsci admonished the Communists that, in order to gain mastery over the thinking of great masses of people it would be necessary for them OR THEIR SYMPATHIZERS to gain control over the very foundational organs of culture. These organs include churches, education institutions, newspapers, magazines, literature, the visual arts, music, etc. He could not, in the 20's, have foreseen that a tremendous weapon such as television and all the electronic media would come along to aid in the control of peoples minds.
He pointed out that you would not have to control ALL the information available to a people if you could gain control over the minds which would be interpreting and disseminating that knowledge. Once that had been achieved, he said, people would no longer be able to fully comprehend the arguments of the opponents to socialism and Marxism. The world we see today gives silent testimony to the correctness of his precepts.
The steps necessary to achieve his cultural hegemony were diverse but all aimed at undermining our traditional culture. Traditional church teachings were gradually transformed at the seminary level into social justice and ideas of equality until worship became entertainment and age-old doctrines were modernized to the point of irrelevancy. Our entire educational establishment was attacked, starting at the teacher college level, to dumb down the educational process with curricula which were slanted toward socialism and internationalism and with standards dramatically reduced or eliminated altogether. The mass media were to be turned into instruments of mind control of the masses and for discrediting all traditional institutions and their leaders. All morality, decency and the age-old virtues were disparaged endlessly. Theologian Harold Brown wrote that culture becomes a means of destroying ideals and ... presenting the young not with heroic examples but with deliberately and aggressively degenerate ones. Our greatest leaders: presidents, soldiers, explorers, thinkers, etc. are depicted as having been racist or sexist or Fascist. Our modern youth are presented with an assortment of socialist charlatans, leftist movie celebrities, rock stars, degenerate and incompetent artists, and the like as the people they should look up to and emulate.
Marriage and the family are continually under attack. The traditional family is held up to ridicule as being a plot by men to dominate women and children. More and more our press tells us that the state must protect children from their uncaring or violent parents. Thus the family, the most basic building block of a cohesive society is being destroyed so that the state may take its place. Government taxation policies enpoverish the traditional family while they subsidize the elevation of extra-marital heterosexual and even homosexual unions. Even the word family is gradually being replaced in our mass media with the indeterminate word household.
Finally, our entire system of law in this country has been gradually changed from being based on English common law and on biblical Christian principles to being based on the personal criteria of unelected federal judges. The principle of stare decisis, meaning that prior precedents are used in deciding new cases, has been largely abandoned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Revolutionary change in the interpretation of the Constitution has become so commonplace that our people no longer pay much attention. Where or when the Court cannot re-interpret or distort the clear meaning of the Constitution, it is simply ignored.
Does all of this mean that all hope is lost and that we should all simply give up and accede to the loss of our God-given freedoms? Absolutely NOT! In our next column, we will address the question of just how we can all work to re-establish the United States, as envisioned by our Founding Fathers, before it is too late.
That was prophetic. And it worked. How many do we have today who can't tell the differences between communism, socialism, and fascism?
I'd wager that 1 in 20 on the streets could correctly differentiate between them.
I hope you'll post that one too.
In reality, it was the Communists above all others who prevented revolution in Spain. Later, when the Right Wing forces were in full control, the Communists showed themselves willing to go a great deal further than the Liberals in hunting down revolutionary leaders.There has never been a truly communist government and never will be.
Between the Communists and those who claim to stand to the Left of them there is a real difference. The Communists hold that Fascism can be beaten by alliance with sections of the caitalist class (the Popular Front); their opponents hold that theis manoeuvre simply gives Fascism new breeding-grounds. The question has got to be settled; to make the wrong decision may be to land ourselves in for centuries of semi-slavery.
Actually he (Gramsci) never recognized that at all! He was simply parroting the 18th century French Philosophe Jean Jacques Rousseau who imagined that he alone had deciphered, and understood, nature's rules of human behavior. The writings of Rousseau heavily influenced Marx, Ingels, and many others, over the years.
Beyond that, this is a FINE article and a GREAT find!
Thanks for posting it!
You are quite correct but he did not come up with that on his own Rousseau had said those things LONG before!
That is the ONLY point I was trying to make.
My Rousseau is limited...where does he say this? Discourses on Origin of Inequality?
To be PERFECTLY honest with you I would have to find it myself but I DO know he advocated, that in order for one to be PROPERLY educated, one's mind must be first freed of such petty (to him) distractions as family and faith.
I will attempt to find more direct citations when I find time.
Well...if one wants to devote the whole of one's being to education--i.e., plumbing the depths and scaling the heights of the greatest questions asked by the greatest minds of the human race, must one not be willing to give up one's family to have the time to do so and be willing to question the dogmas of particular revelations?
Perhaps so, but that is NOT what Rousseau was talking about.
He posited that in order for one to "grow" good citizens one must have the ability to rid the "students" of ANY distraction they might bring with them which might prevent them from putting the interests of the state first in EVERY case.
The European Union's Stealth Attack on Religion
The Spiritual Foundation of the United Nations
The Lucis Trust
The Lucis Trust is the Publishing House which prints and disseminates United Nations material. It is a devastating indictment of the New Age and Pagan nature of the UN. Lucis Trust was established in 1922 as Lucifer Trust by Alice Bailey as the publishing company to disseminate the books of Bailey and Blavatsky and the Theosophical Society. The title page of Alice Bailey's book, 'Initiation, Human and Solar' was originally printed in 1922, and clearly shows the publishing house as 'Lucifer Publishing CoIn 1923. Bailey changed the name to Lucis Trust, because Lucifer Trust revealed the true nature of the New Age Movement too clearly. (Constance Cumbey, The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow, p. 49). A quick trip to any New Age bookstore will reveal that many of the hard-core New Age books are published by Lucis Trust.
At one time, the Lucis Trust office in New York was located at 866 United Nations Plaza and is a member of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations under a slick program called "World Goodwill". In an Alice Bailey book called "Education for a New Age"; she suggests that in the new age "World Citizenship should be the goal of the enlightened, with a world federation and a world brain." In other words - a One World Government New World Order.
Luci's Trust is sponsored by among others Robert McNamara, former minister of Defence in the USA, president of the World Bank, member of the Rockefeller Foundation, and Thomas Watson (IBM, former ambassador in Moscow). Luci's Trust sponsors among others the following organizations: UN, Greenpeace Int., Greenpeace USA, Amnesty Int. and UNICEF.
The United Nations has long been one of the foremost world harbingers for the "New Spirituality" and the gathering "New World Order" based on ancient occult and freemasonic principles. Seven years after the birth of the UN, a book was published by the theosophist and founder of the Lucis Trust, Alice Bailey, claiming that "Evidence of the growth of the human intellect along the needed receptive lines [for the preparation of the New Age] can be seen in the "planning" of various nations and in the efforts of the United Nations to formulate a world plan... From the very start of this unfoldment, three occult factors have governed the development of all these plans". [Alice B. Bailey, Discipleship in the New Age (Lucis Press, 1955), Vol. II, p.35.]
Although she did not spell out clearly the identity of these 'three occult factors', she did reveal to her students that "Within the United Nations is the germ and seed of a great international and meditating, reflective group - a group of thinking and informed men and women in whose hands lies the destiny of humanity. This is largely under the control of many fourth ray disciples, if you could but realise it, and their point of meditative focus is the intuitional or Buddhic plane - the plane upon which all hierarchical activity is today to be found'. [Ibid. p.220.]
To this end, the Lucis Trust, under the leadership of Foster and Alice Bailey, started a group called 'World Goodwill' - an official non-governmental organization within the United Nations. The stated aim of this group is "to cooperate in the world of preparation for the reappearance of the Christ" [One Earth, the magazine of the Findhorn Foundation, October/November 1986, Vol. 6, Issue 6, p.24.]
But the esoteric work inside the UN does not stop with such recognized occult groupings. Much of the impetus for this process was initiated through the officership of two Secretary-Generals of the UN, Dag Hammarskjöld (held office: 1953-1961) and U Thant (held office: 1961-1971) who succeeded him, and one Assistant Secretary-general, Dr. Robert Muller. In a book written to celebrate the philosophy of Teilhard de Chardin (and edited by Robert Muller), it is revealed "Dag Hammarskjöld, the rational Nordic economist, had ended up as a mystic. He too held at the end of his life that spirituality was the ultimate key to our earthly fate in time and space". [Robert Muller (ed.), The Desire to be Human: A Global Reconnaissance of Human Perspectives in an Age of Transformation (Miranana, 1983), p.304.]
Sri Chinmoy, the New Age guru, meditation leader at the UN, wrote: "the United Nations is the chosen instrument of God; to be a chosen instrument means to be a divine messenger carrying the banner of God's inner vision and outer manifestation."
William Jasper, author of "A New World Religion" describes the religion of the UN: "...a weird and diabolical convergence of New Age mysticism, pantheism, aboriginal animism atheism, communism, socialism, Luciferian occultism, apostate Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism".
You can find out much more about them and how they're involved with the work of the United Nations by following their link "World Goodwill" at the top of their home page.
This Website is sponsored by the United Nations and the whole NWO philosophy is there. The page which explains the work of the Aquarian Age Community, as they call themselves, has this proud quote at the header of their page at http://www.aquaac.org/about/about.html
Such a grandeur is ahead!Amongst the many 'enlightening' pages in this website, you can easily find 'fascinating' articles entitled:
"The New World Order and the Work of the UN" http://www.aquaac.org/un/nwo.html
"The World Spiritual Teacher, the Esoteric Community and the United Nations" http://www.aquaac.org/meetings/rttop.html
Preparing the Way for the Reappearance of the World Spiritual Teacher, the Work of the United Nations and the World-Wide Esoteric Community
http://www.aquaac.org/meetings/RT2001.html and many more articles.
This is not Christian theology but New Age paganism. You can also read the NWO quotes I posted, further down this page. Here's another by Curtis Dall, FD Roosevelt's son in law as quoted in his book, My Exploited Father in Law:
"For a long time I felt that FDR had developed many thoughts and ideas that were his own to benefit this country, the United States. But, he didn't. Most of his thoughts, his political ammunition, as it were, were carefully manufactured for him in advanced by the Council on Foreign Relations One World Money group... Brilliantly, with great gusto, like a fine piece of artillery, he exploded that prepared "ammunition" in the middle of an unsuspecting target, the American people, and thus paid off and returned his internationalist political support.
Under the U.N. Gavel
By Sen. Larry E. Craig, R-ID
At its founding, the mission of the United Nations, as stated in its charter, was "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." It made no claim to supersede the sovereignty of its member states. Article 2 says that the United Nations "is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members," and it may not "intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state."
Since then, the United Nations has turned the principle of national sovereignty on its head. Through a host of conventions, treaties and conferences, it has intruded into regulation of resources and the economy (for example, treaties on "biological diversity," marine resources and climate change) and family life (hyping phoney liberalism while masculinity is scorned and western manhood is amputated - causing untold grief to the family unit) (conventions on parent-child relations and women in society). It has demanded that countries institute racial quotas and laws against hate crimes and speech (while the U.N. itself can jail someone for 30 years without trial). Recently the United Nations tried to undermine Americans' constitutional right to keep and bear arms (with proposed restrictions on the international sale of small arms).
Fortunately, many of these have been dead on arrival in the U.S. Senate, successive presidents have refused to endorse others, and in any case the United Nations had little power of enforcement. But in 1998, one mechanism of global government (there it is in the Washington Post folks) came to life with the so-called "Rome Statute" establishing a permanent International Criminal Court (and abolishing the Magna Carta in Britain). Once this treaty is ratified by 60 countries, the United Nations will wield judicial power over every individual human being -- even over citizens of countries that haven't joined the court.
While the court's stated mission is dealing with war crimes and crimes against humanity (what about their own crimes against humanity when they committed widespread genocide in the Balkans and East Timor? Dare I say they are hypocrites?) -- which, because there is no appeal from its decisions, only the court will have the right to define -- its mandate could be broadened later. Based on existing U.N. tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, which are models for the International Criminal Court, defendants will have none of the due process rights afforded by the U.S. Constitution, such as trial by jury, confrontation of witnesses or a speedy and public trial (that's a communist court system!).
President Clinton signed the Rome treaty last year, citing U.S. support for existing U.N. war crimes tribunals. Many suppose the court will target only a Slobodan Milosevic or the perpetrators of massacres in Rwanda, or dictators like Iraq's Saddam Hussein. But who knows? To some people, Augusto Pinochet is the man who saved Chile from communism; to others he is a murderer. Who should judge him -- the United Nations or the Chilean people?
In dozens of countries, governments use brutal force against insurgents. Should the United Nations decide whether leaders in Turkey or India should be put in the defendants' dock, and then commit the United States to bring them there? How about Russia's Vladimir Putin, for Chechnya? Or Israel's Ariel Sharon? Can we trust the United Nations with that decision (the more evil these premieres are - the more the U.N. loves them)?
The court's critics rightly cite the danger to U.S. military personnel deployed abroad. Since even one death can be a war crime, a U.S. soldier could be indicted just for doing his duty. But the International Criminal Court also would apply to acts "committed" by any American here at home. The European Union and U.S. domestic opponents consider the death penalty "discriminatory" and "inhumane." Could an American governor face indictment by the court for "crimes against humanity" for signing a death warrant?
Milosevic was delivered to a U.N. court (largely at U.S. insistence) for offences occurring entirely within his own country. Some say the Milosevic precedent doesn't threaten Americans, because the U.S. Constitution protects them. But for Milosevic, we demanded that the Yugoslav Constitution be trashed and the United Nations' authority prevail. Why should the International Criminal Court treat our Constitution any better (they're already destroying the 2nd amendment with their gun grab and the 1st with their phoney 'hate crime' nonsense)?
Instead of trying to "fix" the Rome treaty, the United States must recognize that it is a fundamental threat to American sovereignty. The State Department's participation in the court's preparatory commission is counterproductive. We need to make it clear that we consider the court an illegitimate body, that the United States will never join it and that we will never accept its "jurisdiction" over any U.S. citizen or help to impose it on other countries.