Interesting. When one strips the details away and comes up with the "raw bones" of the man, we can see a few things:

1) He had a tendency to sit back and let others destroy themselves rather than doing it for him (consider the case of his good friend and rash, impulsive master of horse).

2) He was particularly keen on making an APPEARANCE of solving problems without necessarily actually solving them (consider the excessive sacrifice).

3) He capitalised on disaster (consider his pushing the consul to step down during his dictatorship).

4) He thought outside the box, and won (consider his failure to fight like a Roman when confronted by Hannibal). Of course, his defeat of Hannibal was as much a result of the Carthaginians' betrayal of their general than it was a result of the Romans' good strategy.

5) He was a man of last resort, insulted for his slowness, his ugliness and his apparent cowardice - but when it came down to the last resort, he had absolute power (or at least got his own way without question) because the people had run out of other options.

With these characteristics in mind, he is almost a generic "stock" character in politics. A great opposition leader who was lucky enough to avoid ever being a substantive leader in his own right.

""" That person also said "We need to find a humane 'lethal chamber' """

Here I guess you're referring to the Fabian, George Bernard Shaw?
And his strong beliefs in eugenics.

""" Does the name of a person who followed up on that thought rather dramatically come to mind? """

Many of their ilk have made such references. Maurice Strong, The Duke or Edinburgh, and few others I can't quite remember their names. I think AlGoReIsaApSychoPath may even have murmured such vulgarities.

""" Would it worry you if prominent Australian politicians subscribe to the thinking of such people? """

The sheep would never believe you, it's been said plenty of times. They just don't listen!

Do you think they could get that far, ALGOREStiNks?
It's an uncomfortable subject to be discussing during these political times, but rest assured they wouldn't get very far, even if they have disarmed the public.

Ohhhh OTO....how close you are ! not only warm but red hot!

//2) He was particularly keen on making an APPEARANCE of solving problems without necessarily actually solving them //

People using his strategy do the same thing. They hold to the idea of "Inevitablity of Gradualism"

You would be aware I'm sure of how politics in the west has travelled since the formation of the U.N. You would not be ignorant of how "Human Rights Law" ...'appears' to solve problems....but doesn't.

All those things are but a smokescreen for the ultimate objective.

RAW..now you hit a raw nerve :) but you caught me by surprise when you mentioned the name "Maurice Strong" as one who (like Shaw) advocated Eugenics. But I'm surprised that you missed the 'big' name of Hitler. He is the only one who has outperformed all of them in 'practical application' of the Fabian strategy.

Now that the picture is becoming clearer....should it not be of considerable concern for all of us (as sheep) to look at those who are associated with this kind of thinking and ask 'How did they impact Australia'...we don't need to ask 'why' because we already know that.

This might help enlighten us:

http://www.fabian.org.au/1.asp

Albert Jaime Grassby, AM (12 July 1926 – 23 April 2005), Australian politician, was Minister for Immigration in the Whitlam Labor government. He initiated sweeping reforms in immigration, human rights, and is often known as the father of Australian "multiculturalism".

Noteworthy is:
"but Grassby could point to his enormous popularity within multicultural Australia and the subsequent growth of support for the ALP from this section of the community as more than adequate recompense for any possible loss of support from white Australia."

But GRANDMA....what big TEETH you have......

Hi Al
I find your posts difficult and wish you would just start a topic with the...well...topic, this one could have been tagged the Inevitablity of Gradualism in reference to your subject which appears to be multiculturalism or is it socialist conspiracy?

Societies by nature tend to be progressive and they change, unless stifled by a strong arm regime. For example we have inevitably moved to the centre of politics (with further encroachments to the Right) with the growth of the middle class. Socialism is not on the horizon anytime soon within strong social democratic structures that predominate in the West.

Why don't you just say what it is you want to say instead of working in riddles. The 'inevitably of gradualism' worked wonders in many areas including the abolition of slavery.

Some Fabians might believe that the inevitable demise of capitalsim will lead to socialism but that does not mean that it will be so for the reasons outlined in the link below. I suspect events like the GFC will mean more a tinkering with capitalism and improvements via regulation within a mixed economy.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/wiki/Why_did_socialists_believe_in_gradualism,_and_why_has_gradualism_failed%3F

Dear precious Pelly :)

I'm sorry this has taken a winding road to get 'there'...but if I had come out and said (like a sledge hammer) "Julia Gillard is a Fabian Socialist and is seeking a Socialist transformation of Australia"
welllll... I would have been immediately consigned to the polemical dustbin labelled 'stopppp ramming stuff down our throats' :)

I'ts much much better when people discover things for themselves isn't it ?

But your link was magnificent...it brought out some very good points and I totally accept them in one way...but not in another.
I accept them in that the link shows the shrinking working class and thus a reduced electoral clout. *tick*

But the true gradualism which we are confronted with is much bigger than our own political situation.
The real 'wolf' dressed in a sheep or as Grandma is the UN and it's infection with 'bubonic' socialism. It's driven by very very rich people...such as 'me' and Maurice Strong, George Soros and other capitalists.

You will find a wolf dressed in a Green sheeps skin and in the Electrical Trade Union, in the CFMEU which have already cast aside their camoflage and are ready to eat Red Riding Hood.(us)

The insidious 'gradualism' of the HREOC has to be seen to be believed.
One would only recognize this by very close scrutiny of their legal submissions.(which I've done)

Fortunately for we sheep...and red riding hoods, the Wood cutter did come to the rescue in the end :)

Who is our 'wood cutter' today who will kill the wolf?

Congratulations on a well-thought-out strategy, Al.

> Who is our 'wood cutter' today who will kill the wolf?

It may not be possible, nor desirable. Quint Fab deliberately avoided a direct attack on Hannibal, but succeeded by indirect means. If we're to learn from him, we must not think in terms of 'killing', but perhaps of starving the wolf to death. What is his favourite food? Money. So ... how many here are aware that the Reserve Bank of Oz is a PRIVATE bank, not the national (public) bank that the Commonwealth originally was. I don't much like their politics or Larouche, but the information at:

http://www.cecaust.com.au/

provides some very useful background. To whom does Australian money belong? Official answer: the Reserve Bank. Why? Because they say so. What if we, the people, decided to take back control of our own money. The wolf would starve to death.