This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

Is Gramsci’s Theory for Overthrowing America Being Realized?

Written on Tuesday, November 20, 2012 by

Print Friendly and PDF
gramschi

 

In view of Barack Obama’s re-election, consider the following quote from Stanislav Mishin, writing in PRAVDA—the state newspaper of Russia: “It must be said that, like the breaking of a great dam, the American descent into Marxism is happening with breathtaking speed, against the backdrop of a passive, hapless sheeple—excuse me dear reader—I meant people.”  Is it possible that outsiders who are steeped in what Marxism really looks like can see what Americans cannot?

Most Americans have heard of Karl Marx and his plan for overthrowing democratic governments through armed revolts of the workers.  But few Americans have heard of Antonio Gramsci.  This is too bad because Gramsci is the communist philosopher who developed a theory specifically for overthrowing America.  Gramsci thought that overthrowing the United States through an armed revolt of indigenous workers was unrealistic.  He theorized that a better approach would be to undermine the culture and morality of America so that our country would destroy itself from within.

His plan was for intellectual elites to take control of colleges, universities, public schools, and the government and to use their control to destroy the America of our Founders in the name of progressivism.  Sound familiar? Gramsci called his theory “cultural hegemony.”  As I consider the re-election of Barack Obama and think about the cultural and moral changes that have occurred in America in just the short span of my lifetime, I have to wonder if we are seeing the realization of Gramsci’s theory.  This column explains just a few of the main tenets of his theory.

Gramsci admonished college professors and the leftwing media to refer to communist dictators as “Chairmen,” “Leaders,” and “Presidents,” but never as “dictators.”  This type of rhetorical misdirection would soften the views of the public at large to communist leaders.  The communist tyrant, Mao, was always referred to in the media and by leftwing professors as “Chairman Mao.” Castro is still referred to as “Premier” or “political leader,” but never as “communist dictator.”  Even Joseph Stalin, a dictator who exterminated 30 million of his own people, was referred to fondly as “Uncle Joe” or respectfully as “Premier.”

Another tenet of Gramsci’s theory was gradualism.  He knew how Americans would react to armed insurrection by indigenous workers or anyone else.  Consequently, Gramsci recommended a slow transition first to socialism and then to communism.  The transition to socialism would be done under the guise of saving jobs during times of economic recession.  The government would take control of businesses or even whole business sectors to rescue them from bankruptcy.  Sound familiar?

Another of Gramsci’s strategies was to promote the United Nations as the best hope for world peace and a one-world government.  Once the United Nations was firmly established, the nest step would be to ensure control of the body by communist nations and their surrogates. This meant getting communist China established in a seat on the United Nations Security Council and giving voice to all of the smaller nations around the world that are either controlled or heavily influenced by communist nations such as China.  Again this should sound familiar.

Marx missed the boat concerning how to overthrow America, but Gramsci appears to have hit the mark.  Well before Barack Obama was elected the first time, America was well down the road in implementing the various tenets of Gramsci’s theory.  But under the Obama administration the process has speeded up.

 

 

 

 

Print Friendly and PDF
Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.