Replies

That this discussion is still going since 1999 is a testament to its vitality. Gramsci certainly seems to be the inspiration for Rules for Radicals. However, we should not overstate his role. E.g., Malthus and Sanger were out there there propagandizing to the beat the band long before Gramsci came along. His theories, however, do put their roles as "organic intellectuals" in perspective.

Moreover, the values in conflict today are more nuanced than appears on the surface: Marxist, bourgeois, radical Christian, capitalist, traditional American, and various admixtures of these and probably more (e.g., bourgeois Christianity, Liberation theology).

What does seem to be emerging is a deeper appreciation for the role of the "organic intellectual" in working toward a new synthesis of traditional values for our time -- when some of our most important institutions have become thoroughly corrupt. The explosion of popular dialogue via the internet holds both the risk of a new Tower of Babel and the promise of renewal -- unless Mark Steyn's Armageddon gets here first.

But first we have to deal with the immediate crisis and the likelihood that Obama isn't as dumb as he seems, and that the collapse of our society into economic chaos is, in fact, the pre-determined goal of the left. It certainly fits Marxist theory.

Our most serious enemy, however, is not them, but "us" -- as Pogo once so wisely warned. If America goes down for the count, it will be primarily because of our own apathy and unwillingness to risk "our lives, our honor, and our sacred fortunes" -- as the founding fathers did -- to save it.

As a researcher, I predicted the current crisis as early as 1995 through 1998, and even got the dates right -- starting in 2000 through 2010 and very likely 2020 -- all based on demographics, and not the ups and downs of the stock market. But relatively few listened.

I keep asking: How can we possibly have prosperity with a 43% decline in the birth rate since 1960 and 54.5 million abortions since Colorado legalized it in 1967? Cutting taxes and reducing spending can only moderate the noise we make when we hit bottom. It will take massive renewal of personal responsibility to prevent it.

Basically, we've eliminated at least 30% of our under-45 generation,and yet most people don't want to read the suicidal message on the wall. And now we want to kick the can down the road and send the bill to the under-45'ers. When they wake up to that, there will be hell to pay.

Obama didn't start this one, yet Planned Parenthood still has the active support of Congress and a whole bunch of bourgeois Republicans as well as all of those pandering Democrats. No thanks to Gramsci, we're headed off the cliff with our foot on the gas pedal, and few seem to care.

For more info ck out: http://tinyurl.com/dc8skx

"When they wake up to that, there will be hell to pay."

Most of the folks I know in that age group are already well aware of where things are headed.

Even the idiot leftists know it, they just have had it drummed into their little skulls that the only way to deal it is to be more like Europeans socialists. Now that the EU is going to fall apart over being so Socialist, maybe maybe some of them will wake up. They just can't grasp that just like there isn't always a handy suburban community for a city full of spenders to take over to shore up their tax base, there aren't always economically robust countries to make a "union" with in order to rescue a nation full of reckless spenders.

The thing that amazes me is that there were people talking about the consequences of reducing population growth way back in the seventies and no one cared. I forget the name of the guy, but Buckley had someone on his Sunday show that was saying SS had to be means tested with the income used for the test indexed to inflation way back when Carter was "saving SS" for us. People laughed at the guy because, "oh, population growth will never slow down that much".