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?