I’m not talking about the 80’s heavy metal ‘Twisted Sister,’ although their song ‘We’re Not Gonna Take It’ would be applicable lyrics for a lot of conservative activism at this time. My discussion of the Twisted Sisters Russia and US is the cultural hegemony of Antonio Gramsci, which has been mostly fulfilled in all the US.
I am going to take a wide swipe at the ideological Twisted Sisters Russia and US. Initially I was including China but that is to wide of a swipe for today and will have to be picked up another time.
Now a few years ago I heard a major nationally renowned N. E. Ohio pastor once say that ‘communism is dead’ so there is no reason for Christians to be political activists and everyone should focus on ‘the Bible only.’ I have no clue what he says now since I no longer attend that fellowship or bother to listen to him on any of his digital media. My retort to anyone that says ‘communism is dead’ is – they are naive or they are just plain ignorant of their surroundings or worse, they are responsible for participating in the cultural hegemonic agenda and ideologies of the Twisted Sisters.
I will not claim to be an expert in the Ukrainian debacle. Yet I will claim that I have been a student of Marxism and Gramsci-ism since the late 60’s with in-depth study since the mid-80’s. So I will inject some of that into this program. But I still do not claim some title of deep Sino-Russian analytics that makes me one of those has-beens who are gushing a stream of babble, you know, an ex-spurt. There are the growing list of virtuoso’s in modern events. I see and hear a plethora of digital and media pundits, academic pile it high and deeps (Phd’s) as well as every blogger with opinions like the chipmunks scurrying to and fro. I have trusted sources that I will talk about in this program.
What I want to present this week is some expertise from the Founding Era, some deep reasoning Christian critical thinking. I am conveying the details from these sources during this program. The links for these sources are in the references below.
Twisted Sisters Raised by Gramsci’s
Now the Twisted Sisters Russia and US are related through different fathers with the mother being Marxism. Russia is progeny of Lenin where as US, being the United States is a spawned by Gramsci.
I hope the shock factor of US being a Gramsci spawn really hits home. I want to quote from Antonio Gramsci: the Godfather of Cultural Marxism in the references below that substantiates this argument.
‘His advocacy of a war of position instead of a war of movement was not a rebuke of revolution itself, just a differing tactic—a tactic that required the infiltration of influential organizations that make up civil society. Gramsci likened these organizations to the “trenches” in which the war of position would need to be fought.
Gramsci wrote: ‘The massive structures of the modern democracies, both as state organizations, and as complexes of associations in civil society, constitute for the art of politics as it were the “trenches” and the permanent fortifications of the front in the war of position: they render merely “partial” the element of maneuver which before used the “the whole” of war, etc.’
Gramsci argued that a “frontal attack” on established institutions like governments in Western societies may face significant resistance and thus need greater preparation—with the main groundwork being the development of a collective will among the people and a takeover of leadership among civil society and key political positions.’
In a short summary for this program newsletter, Gramsci directed all efforts for taking US down into infiltrating and dominating, ‘Cultural Hegemony,’ religion, church para-organizations, education, bureaucracies, political parties, trade unions and other popular voluntary associations. So look around at who uses the language calling for any concept of ‘justice.’ Look at the billions of dollars passed in the new federal omnibus funding package. Look at the woke churches and even evangelical education implementing Social Emotional Learning with a Biblical twist.
I would say that the spawning Gramsci-ism in the US impregnated the fertile Constitution and established institutions so to as easily manipulate foundational constitutionalism, which the Anti-Federalists warned could happen. Simply, Gramsci-ism did happen.
Theodore Beza Continued
Question 5. Whether manifest tyrants can lawfully be checked by armed force.
The answer requires that you read the full text and the underlying principals as well as review Questions 2 through 4.
The full text at On The Rights Of Magistrates. Here is the first part of the answer to Question 5:
To give a clearer answer to this question, I must first lay down certain principles constituting, as it were, the foundations of the whole question. Assuredly, it is clear that the people did not first originate from rulers; but whichever people desired to be ruled by a single monarch, or by the chief men elected by them, existed prior to their rulers. Hence it follows that the people were not created for the sake of rulers, but on the contrary, the rulers were created for the sake of the people — even as the guardian is appointed for the ward, not the ward for the guardian; and the shepherd for the flock, not the flock for the shepherd. This proposition is not merely obvious in itself, but it may be corroborated by the history of nearly all nations. God Himself, although he elected Saul to substitute for Samuel in accordance with the desires of the people, God willed that Saul be chosen and accepted as King by the vote of the people. Thus David, though he had first been chosen as king by God Himself, would not undertake the administration of the Kingdom unless he were first confirmed by the vote and unfettered concord of the tribes of Israel. On similar grounds, it happened even afterwards, that though the kingship had been granted by the will of God to the family of David, yet in the end, one from the descendants of David should rule — one whom the people had approved, and no other (unless perhaps something irregular happened to prevent it, as when the Egyptian and then the Syrian kings ruled as tyrants over the people of God). It was such that this kingship was hereditary as far as the family was concerned, but elective regarding the individual incumbent — i.e. it was dependent on the election of the people. This may be seen from the histories of Solomon, Rehoboam, Joash, Uzziah, and Jehoahaz. It is for this reason that Absalom grasped the occasion to usurp his father’s throne. This is why David’s friend, Hushai, answered Absalom: “No, but whom the LORD, and this people, and all the men of Israel have chosen, I will be his, and I will remain with him.” In short, if we would also investigate the histories of ancient times, recorded by secular writers, it will be established — as indeed, Nature herself seems to proclaim with a loud voice — that rulers by whose authority their inferiors might be guided, were elected for a reason. It was that either the whole human race must perish, or some intermediate class must be instituted so that one or more rulers might be able to command the others by it, to protect good men, and restrain the wicked by means of punishments. This is what not only Plato, Aristotle, and the other natural philosophers have taught and proved with the light of human reason alone, but God Himself taught this by the utterance of St. Paul, writing to the Romans. So that, the rulers of nearly the entire world confirmed this with clear words. Thus the origin of all States and Powers is, with the best of reasoning, derived from God, the author of all good. Homer also recognized and freely testified of this when he called kings “the fosterlings of Zeus” and “the shepherds of the lost.” ‘
Sam Adams Wisdom
My commentary: I ask you to think about Gramsci’s principles of ‘cultural hegemony’ and how it marries with feudalism such that the people become those free will slaves who – ‘they love their servitude.’ My emphasis are bold italics.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF MASSACHUSETTS TO THE GOVERNOR.
MARCH 2, 1773.1
[Massachusetts State Papers, pp. 384-396; printed also in the Boston Gazette, March 8, 1773, and in The Speeches of His Excellency Governor Hutchinson, pp. 90-113.]
May it please your Excellency,
In your speech, at the Opening of the present session, your Excellency expressed your displeasure, at some late proceedings of the town of Boston, and other principal towns in the province. And, in another speech to both Houses, we have your repeated exceptions at the same proceedings, as being “unwarrantable,” and of a dangerous nature and tendency; “against which, you thought yourself bound to call upon us to join with you in bearing a proper testimony.” This House have not discovered any principles advanced by the town of Boston, that are unwarrantable by the constitution; nor does it appear to us, that they have “invited every other town and district in the province, to adopt their principles.” We are fully convinced, that it is our duty to bear our testimony against “innovations, of a dangerous nature and tendency;” but, it is clearly our opinion, that it is the indisputable right of all, or any of his Majesty’s subjects, in this province, regularly and orderly to meet together, to state the grievances they labor under; and, to propose, and unite in such constitutional measures, as they shall judge necessary or proper, to obtain redress. This right has been frequently exercised by his Majesty’s subjects within the realm; and, we do not recollect an instance, since the happy revolution, when the two Houses of Parliament have been called upon to discountenance, or bear their testimony against it, in a speech from the throne.
Your Excellency is pleased to take notice of some things, which we “allege,” in our answer to your first speech; and, the observation you make, we must confess, is as natural, and undeniably true, as any one that could have been made; that, “if our foundation shall fail us in every part of it, the fabric we have raised upon it, must certainly fall.” You think this foundation will fail us; but, we wish your Excellency had condescended to a consideration of what we have “adduced in support of our principles.” We might then, perhaps, have had some things offered for our conviction, more than bare affirmations; which, we must beg to be excused, if we say, are far from being sufficient, though they came with your Excellency’s authority, for which, however, we have a due regard.
Your Excellency says, that, “as English subjects, and agreeable to the doctrine of the feudal tenure, all our lands are held mediately, or immediately, of the Crown.” We trust, your Excellency does not mean to introduce the feudal system in its perfection; which, to use the words of one of our greatest historians, was “a state of perpetual war, anarchy, and confusion, calculated solely for defence against the assaults of any foreign power; but, in its provision for the interior order and tranquillity of society, extremely defective. A constitution, so contradictory to all the principles that govern mankind, could never be brought about, but by foreign conquest or native usurpation.” And, a very celebrated writer calls it, “that most iniquitous and absurd form of government, by which human nature was so shamefully degraded.” This system of iniquity, by a strange kind of fatality, “though originally formed for an encampment, and for military purposes only, spread over a great part of Europe;” and, to serve the purposes of oppression and tyranny, “was adopted by princes, and wrought into their civil constitutions;” and, aided by the canon law, calculated by the Roman Pontiff, to exalt himself above all that is called God, it prevailed to the almost utter extinction of knowledge, virtue, religion, and liberty from that part of the earth. But, from the time of the reformation, in proportion as knowledge, which then darted its rays upon the benighted world, increased, and spread among the people, they grew impatient under this heavy yoke; and the most virtuous and sensible among them, to whose steadfastness, we, in this distant age and climate, are greatly indebted, were determined to get rid of it; and, though they have in a great measure subdued its power and influence in England, they have never yet totally eradicated its principles…’
For the complete text of this response to the Governor go to page 451 of The Writings of Samuel Adams Volume II.
1. Washington’s Farewell Address – There is more here than what most modern readers and political persons are willing to take as foundational wisdom, warnings and actionable principals.
2. The Proclamation of Neutrality 1793 – George Washington’s
3. Just War? James Madison’s Second Inaugural Address
History of Russia:
Ukraine and Russia:
On Gramsci Marxism:
1. Gramsci’s Grand Plan, July 5, 1999 by Fr. James Thornton
Why There is a Culture War by John Fonte published Friday, December 1, 2000
3. Cultural hegemony – Wikipedia