Most landmark cases which seriously undermined American morality occurred in the late 50s/early 60s it seems to me. I was watching a doco called 'OBSCENE' on foxtel and it covered the influence of the Grove Publishing house and the Evergreen Review, which hailed from Greenwich Village.

Interestingly, the publisher Barney Rosset, a communist, studied guess where ?

"The New School for Social Research" which was founded by.... the FABIAN SOCIALISTS/(Progressives)

Keeping in mind that the Fabian window 'says it all' about their intent and strategy "Wolf in sheeps clothing"
http://mommylife.net/archives/2009/08/obamas_fabian_s.html

It is therefore no surprise that Rosset spent the rest of his life attacking and undermining American values and morality with his sleaze factory-the Evergreen Review.

Some notable court cases of the time.

"HOWL" poem by Alan Ginsburg
"Lady Chatterly's Lover" D.H Lawrence.
"Tropic of Cancer" Henry Miller.

All published by Rosset, who by his own confession "loves porn and specially the smacking maids type"

He published material "which turned him on" (his words in interview)

So, we have a continuous link between Fabian Socialism, US counterculture and Progressivism which has in turn filtered down from the academic institutions where the 'hippies' became lecturers to us now.

"The inevitability of gradualism"

Comments ?

So, we have a continuous link between Fabian Socialism, US counterculture and Progressivism which has in turn filtered down from the academic institutions where the 'hippies' became lecturers to us now.

"The inevitability of gradualism"

Yeah...and the problems what? Cant be any worse than Christian sheep in wolves clothing can it:) Its been proven that no-one from the higher ranks can be trusted.

So what your alternative........capitalism?...........that's why the worlds in such a mess in the first place.

The last famous words from a dieing tradition.

RIP

BLUE

Dear blue...you are quite entertaining mate :)

Capitalism and a free market are the best ways to arrange society.

The problems come when the market is not FREEEEE..such we have with the big 4 scumbags.(Banks) They are a cartel.

The problem with freedom...is that it allows scum to operate, but they can only go so far until they are stopped by public and democratic reaction. Thus we now see the government at least making noises about boosting up Credit Unions etc.

But anything less than freedom is Tyranny which no one really wants unLESS they happen to be on the Tyrants side or team.

Progressives (Communists in drag) would have us believe that our 'freedom' is in fact tyranny and oppression. (See this essay)

http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm

I might be oppressed...but it's by the scumbags, not the system.
I can actually get free from that economic oppression, and live a pretty happy life. Under socialism/progressivism.. there is only a dark, hopeless highway to HELL.

Al........Progressives (Communists in drag) would have us believe that our 'freedom' is in fact tyranny and oppression. (See this essay)

Again? Whats your alternative?

The political evolution is like a serpent that twists and turns with a fundamental tang....which all sees an opposite view to another. I see you have great concern for the current position in which the world that presents itself, (as a fire breathing two headed dragon)........and I'm finding it hard to see (other than just to have a little chat online) how this is going to come to light any time soon.

You come across as very complicated individual with far to much time on ones hands and I feel the storm in the teacup is nothing more than self entertainment. The essay points out a basic understanding of an individuals fundamental thinking's. The western culture is not under any immediate threat as far as I can see and there is alot more powerful people than us in control that keeps a fairly well good balance throughout the world.

Some see this as a threat Al.

http://tinyurl.com/2awj5y6

BLUE

How socialist ever got labeled progressive is just another perversion of language. Progressive in the eyes of a socialist is usually regression into immorality and social engineering. They often pervert science and somehow think being immoral makes them wise as shown by the 'gay' marriage debate.

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail, eh Boaz?

>>So, we have a continuous link between Fabian Socialism, US counterculture and Progressivism<<

I'd be a little more convinced, if you didn't rely so heavily on that window that "says it all".

>>"The New School for Social Research" which was founded by.... the FABIAN SOCIALISTS/(Progressives) Keeping in mind that the Fabian window 'says it all' about their intent and strategy "Wolf in sheeps clothing"<<

http://mommylife.net/archives/2009/08/obamas_fabian_s.html

"The window contains the image of two men--founders of the society--hammering the globe (from the top down no less) with sledgehammers--imposing their will on the world so to speak."

("So to speak." Don't you love that?)

The words that hover around the smithy - "remould it closer to your heart's desire", "pray devoutly, hammer stoutly" - tell a different story.

Here's a quick "Smithy 101" primer for you.

http://www.simongrant-jones.com/history_of_the_blacksmith.html

The blacksmith's job was not to "impose his will" on anything. The image is nothing more than that of a skilled craftsman at work, fashioning something useful from raw material.

So, from one false interpretation to another.

"More ominous still - the wolf in sheep's clothing"

Bernard Shaw designed the window. Bernard Shaw was a playwright and an acute observer of human nature. The inclusion of the wolf in sheep's clothing was closer to whimsy than a cold-hearted political statement of intent, as Caroline Townsend would have recognized.

"It shows Shaw, Sidney Webb and ER Pease (secretary of the Fabian Society) helping to build ‘the new world‘. The figures are in Elizabethan dress which was to poke fun at Pease who evidently loved everything medieval."

http://www.webbmemorialtrust.org.uk/default.asp?page_name=The%20Fabian%20Window

"The people grouped at the bottom were leading members of the Society, most of them members of the Fabian executive, with on the far left, HG Wells, who is seen ‘cocking a snook‘, which evidently was a reference to his unsuccessful battle with Shaw and Webb for control of the Society."

This window is about as indicative of the Fabian agenda as the elephant is indicative of the Republican.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/4622759/Rampaging-bull-elephants-on-heat-controlled-by-female-love-calls.html

Although, that might explain Sarah Palin.

Gradualism and progressive are two terms that can be applied equally to Left and Right politics. Free market politics and deregulation were both labelled categorically as 'progressive' reforms.

It is all about extremes - that is where your concerns should lie. The current Tea Party Conservatives are probably hoping 'gradualism' will come into play to serve their own agenda. It appears to be working in the US where clever mind game politics are played which even see discussions about public health care (access for the poor) labelled as a communist plot. At least the tea party lot do provide some light entertainment from time to time (alas if it wasn't so serious).

The ability of Conservatives to spin the truth towards big business vested interests knows no bounds and I hate to disappoint you Al but many in your camp are also against Free Trade in it's purest form - they are only interested in establishing free trade agreements that work in their own interests with complete disregard to any other nation's sovereignty or domestic regulation and laws (those that affect their commercial vested interests in that nation including ridiculous notions of commercial compensation).

How you can abide that while your head is underground chasing Fabian socialists really eludes me.

Dear Pericles... you are the master of understatment arn't u ?

Recharacterizing all the symbolism of the Fabian Window in 'tame' terms is a skill you have employed on a range of arguments.

No problemo.. that's what we are here for.. different perpectives.

But I think, given that the formation of the Fabians was specifically to disseminate socialism to the world..and remould it's economony and social structure along socialist paradigms should be sufficient to alert you as to what's going on. Looking at the various schools of 'social research' they have founded and funded....it becomes pretty clear to all but the most blinkered among us...oops..is that you hand raised up high there ?

PELLY...you say:

//The ability of Conservatives to spin the truth towards big business vested interests knows no bounds and I hate to disappoint you Al but many in your camp are also against Free Trade in it's purest form//

I fail to see why you would be dissappointing me about the motivation of some high flyers in the capitalist world mate... look at ME (Gore) and STRONG! and many others.

Remember.....my mind lives *here* "ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23....

I have not the slightest doubt that 'big' cappo's will try to 'caret-ize or monopolize the markets they do business in. So.. we need a degree of regulation and transparency...obviously.

You'll notice Pelly that 'Big' Labor and 'Big' business are the same horse with different jockeys.

As I was driving passed our local 'sex megamart' on Canterbuy road tonight, with my Mrs and one of her co-workers...I was rambling a bit about history...and noted that in 1960 it would be beyond unthinkable to even imagine such a thing! But now? *everywhere* and it all happened as a result of the topic of this thread.

BLUE! calling me names now ? :) *complicated*... I'll agree with you there actually...nothing simple about me.

Then you say:

//The western culture is not under any immediate threat as far as I can see //
WHAT THE ? BLUE..the fact that you can't see it is testimony to how effective the 'gradualism' has been... it carried you right along with it and.. *voila*.."what threat" you say.

See previous post about the sex shop.

Yes ALGORE, Western society has changed since
the 1950s. No longer is sex a taboo subject to
be hidden away and thought about as dirty. Most
of us no longer worry about Reds under our beds,
let alone in them.

Contraception is now freely available, and women
now have careers beyond domestic servitude and motherhood.
Homosexuals no longer live in fear of exposure and/or
arrest. Pubs remain open after 6pm and women are even
allowed in them. Aborigines are now counted in the Census
and even have Land Rights.

Publications like "Howl", "Lady Chatterley's Lover"
and "Tropic of Cancer" are freely available, probably
even in your local council library. When we go out for
dinner we can choose from Italian, Greek, Chinese, African,
Moroccan, Thai, Vietnamese, Indian, Mexican, Spanish etc cuisine.

You can even buy decent coffee just about anywhere in Australia.

Most of us think that these are socially progressive
changes, rather than some kind of dire socialist plot.
It's only a tiny minority who are locked in a white bread
'Leave it to Beaver' time warp. They must be desperately
unhappy with the real world.

Al....Not all is black and white..............and you dam well know it....Just have a good Christmas..and be done with it.

All the best.

BLUE

Al, I agree that intolerance is a difficult word. Should one tolerate intolerance and is that in itself intolerant. :)

However, gradualism can work in positive ways as I mentioned in another thread on morality eg. the abandonment of slavery and 'witch' burnings. All once considered morally just when really it served only a selfish purpose.

I am also worried about the gradualism that led to supposed 'reforms' about globalisation, deregulation (in some areas) and threats to national sovereignty in an uneven playing field. The GFC is a good example of what can happen with gradualism and this applies to both sides of politics.

Gradualism like many things depend on one's point of view and how important one values what is changing ie. is it a good or a bad thing in their opinion.

1/2/11...........is when I'll talk to you next.

please take care.

You have only one life.

See you next year.

BLUE

OkiDoki Blue.... next year. Enjoy!

Talisman... a most interesting (if biased and distorted) perspective you have there.

I'd be interested in knowing your approx age.. me 62. What you seem to be doing is this:

*Looking back on the 50s "as portrayed" in typical 'progressive/socialist' propoganda.

You think 'sex' was seen as 'dirty' then... like heck it was... there are many varieties of sex, and there is a clean, pure version and dirty opportunistic expliotative versions.

Sex was never viewed as 'dirty' as such in those days. But we knew what a 'filthy word' was and how the female private parts and intercourse were derogatorily used for the most intense swear words we knew...but it was recognized as that....calling someone a 'f-ng C' was about as bad as it could be. But the dirty side can only be understood in contrast to the pure side. Without the purity and love...the dirty does not have meaning.

The most noticable thing about the various 'stepping stones' listed was their prolific use and 'normalization' of the "dirty/obscene/filthy".

Remember..the bloke at the helm of Grove Publishing was turned on by porn, and the "smacking maids" type at that...violent porn.
He said 'that' is why he published it...it turned HIM on.

REDS UNDER THE BEDS. The fact that you are so blazay about it heralds the success of the Fabian Strategy in your case especially.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_strategy **
They arn't under our beds they are in our universities, teaching our children. Go into the main Swanston st entrance of RMIT and do a lefty. You'll pass the 'Marxist Economics' and many other such publications at the Student Union shop.

SLAVERY etc. Pelly seems to forget it was the likes of William Wilberforce, a staunch evangelical who hammered away at abolition.

**a military strategy where pitched battles and frontal assaults are avoided in favor of wearing down an opponent through a war of attrition and indirection.

"SLAVERY etc. Pelly seems to forget it was the likes of William Wilberforce, a staunch evangelical who hammered away at abolition."

I don't forget Al but have you forgotten it was a belief in religious entitlement (white supremacy) that also perpetuated and established slavery for economic gain.

Please don't paint me as anti-religion. My only concern about religion is when adherents attempt to use force against free citizens (physical or legislatively) to their view, or commit harm through some warped perceptions of acting in 'God's name'.

I have always acknowledge the good that many religious figures have accomplished. The difference is I will also acknowledge the wrong committed in the name of religion. A religious following does not give a free pass for misdeeds (as you would agree) nor should it IMO, protect one from criticism. We are all, atheist and theist alike, responsible for our own actions.

Dear Pelly... Look...see ? :) no brush in hand...

The idea that some human beings are inferior and/or should be subservient, as held by some who supported slavery, is one which cannot be sustained in the light of scripture...though they would disagree.

Let's not go into the whole hermeneutic and historical arguments now..but I take your point that some 'religious' people did support slavery.

There is a MUCH bigger thing happening in America at the moment. I'd call it the 'New Slavery' program.

2 THINGS to NOTE.

1/ The American military is now forumulating plans to keep the place together in the face of widespread and severe economic and social breakdown.

2/ The FCC (Federal Communications Commission)is, under the control of 'progressives' (Fabians etc) and they are trying to circumvent both the courts and congress by implementing a 'Net Neutrality' idea which will allow them to weed out anyone who THEY think is not being 'fair' in what they present.

Their first target is 'Talk Radio'.

Rev Al Sharpton came out with this "Rush Limbaugh is free to say whatever he likes..but he IS NOT FREE to say things which are offensive on PUBLIC radio"

Who decides what is 'offensive' ? welllll...welcome to the upside down world of the Left wing version of "Lady Chatterly's lover is obscene"

By that I mean that rather than 'steamy sleazy sex books' being rejected by the conservative status quo of the late 50s...we now have 'progressive' tyrrany over anything political THEY don't like being said on the air waves.

NEVER NEVER EVER...forget just how far Marcuse's progressive thinking has penetrated the US academic establishment.

http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm

//The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed.//

Boaz, the current demonization of Fabianism is simply a fad, and will die out soon.

>>...given that the formation of the Fabians was specifically to disseminate socialism to the world..and remould it's economony and social structure along socialist paradigms should be sufficient to alert you as to what's going on.<<

What you conveniently ignore is the fact that the formation you refer to was over a hundred years ago. The world looked very different, back then.

There were many flavours of revolutionaries and anarchists in the UK and Europe - there were even "anarcho-socialists" - in the late nineteenth century. The formation of a peace-oriented group, who believed that the goodness of mankind could be best developed through education, rather than violence, was quite refreshing. Which was why it attracted intellectuals, as opposed to rabble-rousers.

The notion that such societal improvements could be brought about without the need for revolutionary upheaval was simply an internal discipline to guide their thoughts, as opposed to the agenda to subvert society by stealth that you perceive it to be.

This is not re-writing history. It is telling it straight. To understand European Socialism in its pre-Great War context, and why the Russian Revolution did not infect the UK, you need to respect Fabianism for what it was: the peaceful road to social justice.

The sudden appearance of Fabianism on the US shock-jock circuit is nothing more than a feeble attempt to stick a pejorative label on all forms of Socialism. It is a catchphrase, pretty much at the same level as "Coke is it", and about as meaningful. And in the same way that Coke now has a different slogan, Fabianism as a target of the right will also be supplanted by something equally mundane.

Trying to "join the dots" of all that you see as evil in this world, by lumping it under the heading of Fabianism is a fruitless and uninformative task, Boaz.

But some time soon the world will move on, and you will find yourself holding a "Resist Fabianism" and wonder why people are laughing at you.

FYI

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/unified-quest-2011-pentagon-war-games-u-s-economic-meltdown/

Obama just extended the Unemployment benefits for 13more months. (using money the USA doesn't have of course)

Then what ?

ALGORE, I just read this description from another
discussion that you started:

"The 'everything is a Fabian plot to undermine society' rant."

Which seems very apt. Silly me, I hadn't realised
quite the extent to which this vast conspiracy theory
is apparently an obsession with you. I'll know to
leave it alone in future, as I've learned that those
who subscribe to such fantasies are impervious to
reason.

Also, we're around the same age, but we obviously
differ radically in our experience of the social
revolutions of the 1960s. There's nothing wrong
with a bit of S&M porn if that's what consenting
adults are into. It's not my thing, but I have
personally derived much enjoyment in my time from
the relaxation of the prudish sexual morality that
I was born into.

Apparently you don't. Are you a fan of Fred Nile
and other such reactionary wowsers?

Gee, Boaz, I thought you'd be hopping from foot to foot with excitement at Obama's capitulation to the Republicans on the tax-break extension.

>>Obama just extended the Unemployment benefits for 13more months. (using money the USA doesn't have of course)<<

It went like this.

Obama had committed to repeal the tax breaks that affected the US' 400 or so billionnaires, and get them to stick their grubby little hands just a teensy bit deeper into their pockets.

The Republicans (read: redneck shock jocks) branded this "un-American", and forced him to leave them in place.

Well done guys. Obviously, the task of dragging the US away from the Bush-created recession is not your problem, it is "the governments".

Luv yer work.

Dear Talisman... clearly I'm moving too fast for your (and my:) old brain.

Let me back up a tad.

1/ The Fabians were begun by....identifiable, specific individuals who spelt out their agenda. (Bring Socialism to the world)

with me so far? Just to underline it...this isn't 'conspiracy' theory it's historical fact. This is not a 'building 7 was blown up wild theory..it is documented by the people themselves. That's called 'oncontrovertable evidence'.

2/ The Fabian window demonstrates their grand vision for the world, as it was commissioned by the founders to do just that. Again...nothing 'theoretical' about it... implaccable historical fact.

3/ As further evidence of their specific, identifiable, verifiable plan...they founded such institutions as the Londone School of Economics to spread their ideology.

4/ In the example cited for the Grove publishing scoundrel Henry Rosset, he studied at a "New University for social research" founded by the Fabians.

Interestingly, the things which "turned Rosset on" (kinky sex) ALSO turned on a significant number of "progressive" New York socialites who (to QUOTE one) "we had the best orgies at that time.. sex clubs etc"

Again...there is ZERO argument from silence or assumption.. only historical fact which is completely harmonious with line of fact and reason.

Always remember the Fabians CHOSE their name for a very good reason. It was to reflect their methodology. "Gradualism"

Now..I observe Pericles reasonable sounding points in his 2nd last post..and will address them in my next..please read.

PERICLES... I'll devote a separate post to that thoughtful 2nd last one.

PERICLES...

addressing a couple of points you raised.

1/The formation of a PEACE-oriented group, who believed that the goodness of mankind could be best developed through education, rather than violence, was quite refreshing.

2/ The notion that such societal IMPROVEMENTS could be brought about without the need for revolutionary upheaval .....

3/ you need to respect Fabianism for what it was: the peaceful road to social justice.

Ouch Ouch and OUUUUCH! Wellll... we can see some of your own socio-philosophical presuppositions emerging now... can't we!

So, develop the goodness of mankind ? :) Oh yessss... "Orgies/Sex parties/Pornography" yep.. amazing stuff. (Grove publishing mob and progressive associates)

"Improvements" ? hmmmm... you tell more about yourself there mate.

The reason fabianism is being attacked now, is that it is STILL at work, with the same objectives.

Let's not forget what Socialism is Pericles.. "total control" of peoples lives, the dissappearance of freedom and the imposition of State as god. It destroys initiative and vision..replacing those things with 'social improvements' which are decided by an educated elite. Unnnnfortunately.. it simply doesn't work.

It always begins with Capitalist funding, and ends with everyone being equally broke. (and miserable)

SOCIAL JUSTICE ? ? ? you must be kidding. This is becoming a technical term for 'redistribution of wealth' by using a legislative sledge hammer, rather than a softly softly, not overly encroaching approach.
There is ZERO 'justice' in simply spending what you don't have.
There is ZERO 'justice' in deceiving society with promises of social justice which REALLY means "Jobs for my union or party members"
'That'..is unjust tyrrany.

Hello ALGORE. As I said, I'm not going to play.

But I will point out that nobody takes socialism
seriously these days, except a few pimply uni
students and unreconstructed old guard unionists,
the odd surviving dictator and lately, the lunar
right commentariat in the USA.

Might I suggest you eschew Beck and the Bible, in
favour of the writings of Brown*, who I think really
exposes the kinds of secret international machinations
that apparently fascinate you.

* Dan, not Bob.

I just adore the way you leap to conclusions, Boaz, clearing tall buildings of fact and logic with a single bound.

>>Ouch Ouch and OUUUUCH! Wellll... we can see some of your own socio-philosophical presuppositions emerging now... can't we!<<

Actually, they were the "socio-philosophical presuppositions" of the Fabians, Boaz. My own views are not on display here.

But the whole point is that they would not be Fabians if they did not believe most fervently that their aspirations for the world were intended to improve, rather than destroy.

They would instead have been revolutionaries (of which there were plenty at that time) or anarchists (ditto), who actively promoted upheaval and violence as the means to achieve their ends.

Which, by the way, were in the eyes of the revolutionary and the anarchist, as equally beneficial to humankind as the gentler, kinder approach of the Fabians.

>>Oh yessss... "Orgies/Sex parties/Pornography" yep.. amazing stuff. (Grove publishing mob and progressive associates)<<

Now you have to be a little careful in your cause/effect analysis here, Boaz. You are using the same logic that says that paedophile priests are a direct result of the teachings of Jesus. Which, we all recognize, is not the case.

>>Let's not forget what Socialism is Pericles.. "total control" of peoples lives<<

Not really. That's just the bogeyman Socialism that the shock-jock community want you to fear. Once they have done that, then they can label anything remotely egalitarian as "Socialist", and you all knee-jerk your shock-horror response, like good little yes-men.

Incidentally, you are still relying too heavily on the symbolism that you have read - or more accurately, have been told to read - into that window. It's a window, Boaz. Just a whimsical, slightly tongue-in-cheek pictured window.

I suggest also that you investigate a little more closely the position of LSE in your Fabian universe.

And explain, if you can, how Goh Keng Swee, an LSE alumnus and the principal architect the economic policies that drove Singapore from backwater to thriving commercial hub, represents the Fabian ideal.

Or Mick Jagger, come to that.

Hi Pericles.

Aaaah....Singapore...you have aroused memories of Orchard road and the Ngee Ann centre... basement 2 for the best jolly tucker in the whole place...affordable too!

But Singapore and the LSE? well...I wouldn't attribute too much of it's success to the LSE education of just one minister. But if you spend some time there, you will quickly (or.. perhaps slowly :) realize that it IS a place of almost 'total control', albeit in a manner which enshrines the position and wealth of a relatively small number of families. It is not your classic 'socialist' country, and anything of the Fabian vision about the "well-being of all" seems to have been filtered out if Goh is supposed to be the lynch pin of the economic miracle. As I've previously related, there is very little social welfare/safety net other than your family there.. you have to prove you have NO-ONE to look after you and..that you do need looking after, b4 you can get a cent from the public purse. I saw a 70 yr old bloke clearing tables in a resturant...just to survive.

You'll have to help me with the LSE "position". I looked, but found not.

I did however look closely at the basis on which it was founded and presumably reflects the mentality which is passed to the Students.

According to Shaw, in an Essay "Basis for Socialism-Economic" he simply re-states Marxist Theory in slightly mellower tones.

To think that the London School of Economics was NOT founded to pursue and promote such ideas is absurd. The 'effectiveness' of that task, is debatable. Let History decide.

....cont/

THE BASIS FOR SOCIALISM-ECONOMIC (G.B. Shaw)

since inequality is bitter to all except the highest, and miserably
lonely for him, men come greatly to desire that these capricious
gifts of Nature might be intercepted by some agency having
the power and the goodwill to distribute them justly according
to the labor done by each in the collective search for them.
This desire is Socialism ; and, as a means to its fulfilment,
Socialists have devised communes, kingdoms, principalities,
churches, manors, and finally, when all these had succumbed
to the old gambling spirit, the Social Democratic State, which
yet remains to be tried.

NOTE THESE WORDS "Some 'agency' having the POWER and 'goodwill' (?) to distribute them......justly"

Does ANYone know of a time in history when 'people' at the top of a 'State' did that ? "distribute Justly"?

In the communist state it has always mean't 'PARTY MEMBERS' first and especially those party members CLOSEst to the top.

It became "State Capitalism" which is in fact National Socialism.

The primary problem with this utopian idea is the fact that it relies on HUMANS to fulfill it.

I'll be 'dogmatic' here and simply quote Romans 3:23

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"

Paul spent 3 chapters developing the argument which culminates with that short sentence.

History.....appears to be on my side in offering this Biblical evaluation of mankind.

ALGORE, I think you've misconstrued Pericles'
point completely. You are suggesting that students
of the LSE are indoctrinated into Fabian socialism
because its founders were Fabian socialists. Pericles
has nominated Goh Keng Swee and Mick Jagger as alumni
of that institution who demonstrably have not gone on
to engage in Fabian gradualism.

You seem to agree that Singapore is hardly a model
of a socialist society, yet paradoxically you're
sticking to your conspiracy theory about the LSE.

Your argument makes no sense.

Thanks for the observation, talisman.

>>ALGORE, I think you've misconstrued Pericles' point completely.<<

You are absolutely right, of course.

I was trying to get Boaz to understand that the LSE does not simply churn out Fabians, gradually imposing Socialism on the world, but can also produce "instant-pudding" authoritarian capitalists.

Back to you, Boaz.

As I mentioned earlier, you are omitting from your assessment of Fabianism, its historical context.

The passage you quoted was from Fabian Essays in Socialism, published in 1889. At the beginning of that year there were only 38 States in the United States. It was also before the (major, second) Boer War, WWI or the Russian Revolution.

So you should not take him to task for his lack of perception, as to what perversions of his ideals man will later bring about.

>>In the communist state it has always mean't 'PARTY MEMBERS' first and especially those party members CLOSEst to the top.<<

Yes, hindsight is a wonderful gift, is it not. One that you exercise so often.

Did you read all of the essays, I wonder?

Because if you had, you would have seen GBS (who was Irish, by the way, not English) takes this somewhat... Boazian swipe at the landed gentry.

"Nevertheless, since they still depend on their tenants' labor for their subsistence, they continue to pay Labor, with a capital L, a certain meed of mouth honor; and the resultant association of prosperity with idleness, and praise with industry, practically destroys morality by setting up that incompatibility between conduct and principle which is the secret of the ingrained cynicism of our own time, and which produces the curious Ricardian phenomenon of the man of business who goes on Sunday to the church with the regularity of the village blacksmith, there to renounce and abjure before his God the line of conduct which he intends to pursue with all his might during the following week."

This should tell you that we are looking here at an idealist, not someone who was bent on establishing a Communist State.

Context, Boaz. Context.

Always useful.

Magnificent debate here!

Talisman, let's go back to basics and argue the facts.
I enjoy some banter with a disagreer like yourself and Pericles, because disagreement gives opportunity for a dialectical synthesis :)

Does anyone disagree with a fundamental point, that the Fabians were begun with a view of disseminating Socialist Idealism and optimism into academic and social life in the UK and the world?

If you disagree...then please justify that.

Ok..that's our starting point.

Shaw wrote, as many do.. with the view that a 'new system' will save the planet and mankind. He and his ilk were completely incorrect, as history has shown.

So... perhaps we might legitimately ask "Has the Fabian Socialist Agenda CHANGED since those days? and if so...'how' and more importantly.. I hope you who seem to be of this view will say "Here...in this essay/book/page/link" etc and provide supporting evidence.

I suppose it's possible that as time has gone by, people like Julia Gillard, a Fabian, might see it just as a 'think tank'....but improbable given that Politicians look rather closely at which groups they align themselves to.

The connection between Fabian Education and Barney Rosset is very well established. Did he 'act' contrary to Fabian socialist teaching?

Remember Socialism is about 'tolerance' and ridding society of capitalist oppression. How was 'capitalist oppression' perceived in the 50s by people like Rosset? "Intolerance of pornography and wild sex, the straight and homo kind"

Did the likes of Rosset and similarly trained/educated "progressive/Communists" succeed in changing the world?" They sure DID! and we are all just a few clicks away from seeing it in living color.

In order to defeat capitalism, you must undermine it at the economic, cultural and spiritual levels. This they have done...and done well.

Please respond to the 'Starting Point' in replies.

ALGORE, at the risk of pointing out the obvious,
Julia Gillard may have been a Fabian socialist
in her callow youth, but she certainly isn't
acting like one now. Indeed, the entire ALP
seems at pains to relegate its socialist foundations
to a kind of embarrassed ideological past.

Socialism undoubtedly seemed a great idea in the late
19th century when the Fabians were established,
but times have indeed changed. As I said, about the
only people talking about socialism these days are naïve
students and lunar Right American rabble rousers. Even
the unions have given up on it as an ideology.

You need to move with the times, mate.

Dear Talisman

I think we are getting somewhere now.

But do you agree with the 'starting point' ? We can discuss deviations from that over the past century once we agree about what it was when it began.

Your point:

//Indeed, the entire ALP seems at pains to relegate its socialist foundations to a kind of embarrassed ideological past.//

Not so fast please. The Left wing of the Labor party is becoming "Greener" by the day as it reaches out for some political entity which seems to match it's ideological position.

So..SEGMENTS of the Labor Party, notably the Right wing, may be trying to distance themselves..but others are not.

If Julia Gillard does not wish to be tarred with a Fabian socialist brush, then:

a) She should remove herself from MEMBERSHIP..... and..condemn the ideas of a 'one party socialist order' in unambiguous terms.

b) You should try to show me with convincing evidence that Fabian ideology has in fact altered since the original vision was espoused.

Gillard is pragmatic it seems. Remember the Wolf in Sheep's clothing logo ? She may well be continually positioning herself for 'plausable deniability' while behind the scenes working toward the fulfillment of those very goals. She is a "Politician" and she HAS to appear to appeal to sufficient voters to get alected.

That means her image is tightly managed by minders who translate the opinion polls and focus group information into 'image' for the media.

Agree ?

"Agree ?"

No. Have a nice day.

Dear Talisman... that was not much of a response.

If you want to convince me of the invalidity of my position and assertions... you could do a better job by actually showing my position is flawed rather than stonewalling and burying your head in the ideological sand :)

I did have a nice day..and still am....just back from Church service.. wow.. uplifting, renewing, exhilarating.

So...why am I wrong on the points I made last post?

ALGORE, I've already said that I'm not going
to play your conspiracy theory game with you.
I don't want to convince you of anything, rather
it is you who is trying to convince everybody
else with your ridiculous parroting of lunar
right American conspiracy theories.

I, and it seems most others here, think that
your Fabian conspiracy theory is a load of bollocks,
despite your best efforts. You're most welcome
to entertain us with further crackpot theories, but
please don't expect me to take such arrant nonsense
seriously.

Have another nice day.

Dear Talisman

pity you are so lazy regarding facts :)

Mate... There are conspiracy *theories* and conspiracy *facts*.

The issue which separates the two is.. 'documentation/facts/evidence'.

Now..thinking more generally, ever political party is a 'conspiracy'....

Is that little bit of basic wisdom lost on you? They are groups of people who 'conspire' together to acheive a particular end, based on a fundamental ideology. In the case of the Liberal party (say) it is a conservative economic social theory along with the idea of small government and a free market and individual acheivement.

The idea that there is NOT an opposite 'force' at work, which is socially and economically to the left is simply ludicrous.

The posture and position of the Fabians is spelt out in their own documentation. If
Whitless
Hawke
Keating
Plibersek
Crean (Frank)
Gillard

are 'Fabians'....doesn't this suggest they have sympathy for the ideas which characterize "Fabians" ?

Logic would compell such a conclusion.
Anyway...I've written to them asking for an update (Fabian society)

So.."to be continued"

Fortunately, I had already put down my coffee cup before I read this gem from Boaz.

>>Dear Talisman pity you are so lazy regarding facts :)<<

Of course, it is quite possible that the little smiley at the end was to indicate that you, as the past master of failing to check even the most basic of facts, were being self-deprecatory.

That would be a first.

Here's your current position. Correct me if I'm wrong.

"If Whitless Hawke Keating Plibersek Crean (Frank) Gillard are 'Fabians'....doesn't this suggest they have sympathy for the ideas which characterize "Fabians" ?<<

Key to this piece of bootscootin' logic is whether you are able to understand that life today is considerably different to that which the founders of Fabianism experienced.

Most of us are able to detect some subtle differences between pre-Revolutionary Europe and present-day Australia.

Similarly, we are able to see that the Fabians have morphed over time from being essentially pacifist agitators for a less divisive ideology, to a left-of-centre think-tank that examines policy alternatives.

These are facts. To take a contra position, you would need a straw man.

Ah, here he is now.

>>The idea that there is NOT an opposite 'force' at work, which is socially and economically to the left is simply ludicrous.<<

That doesn't make your analysis of Fabian influence on the left any more "factual" does it.

And there is a basic problem, too, with this line of argument, Boaz...

>>...doesn't this suggest they have sympathy for the ideas which characterize "Fabians"?<<

Which is that you have spent far too much time in agonizing over the import of that insignificant piece of kitsch, the "Fabian window", and far too little examining the present realities.

"Having sympathy" with a historical movement that offered intelligent people a non-violent, non-revolutionary position from which to advance a more socialist agenda, does not indicate in any way a desire to advance a New World Order.

Now I think about it, isn't the New World Order supposed to be über-capitalist in nature, rather than über-socialist?

Or am I mixing up my conspiracy theories here?