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 ?