Quantcast

Never Call Socialism by Its Right Name -JUST CALL IT OBAMA!

JoeBtfsplk 2012/05/26 13:02:37
Allen West was the latest to get his knuckles rapped for saying there were "about 78 to 81" members of the Democratic Party who are members of the Communist Party.I His crime, like McCarthy's, was in raising an uncomfortable subject. We may never know who is or isn't a communist, socialist, Marxist, Stalinist or Leninist in Congress, since all socialists work by deception, define words with obscurities, and refuse to identify themselves, with exceptions like Dohrn and Van Jones. Even in the heyday of communism, the most influential of its comrades were never "card carrying members" and lying was a way of life, which included obligatory perjury. But regardless of their nuances, deception is an integral part of their political ideology.


LLLL

We have the guidance of an expert -- George Bernard Shaw of the Fabian Society who called Lenin, the "greatest Fabian of them all." He formulated and described the Fabian methodology: it used "methods of stealth, intrigue, subversion, and the deception of never calling socialism by its right name."II What we have unearthed from West's exchange, Moyers' ghost story, historical incidents, the Venona documents, and the House Committee on Un-American Hearings is something more important than who is or who isn't, and more important than differing definitions -- it is rule number one of the broad left: deception. Case in point: Shaw would not say that Lenin was the greatest Marxist or communist of them all -- but the greatest Fabian of them all. Not so shrill on the ears. And all they cared about was perception.


LLLL

Look closely the Earth on an anvil being 're-shaped'

LLLL

Deception is starkly illustrated by the Fabian Society's famed stained glass window revealed by Tony Blair in 2006 at the London School of Economics. Designed by Shaw, it shows Fabians "Sidney Webb and ER Pease... helping to build 'the new world'."
The most stunning thing to note is the Fabian Society's coat of arms seen below: a wolf in sheep's clothing.

llll

Davidson, an American, and his friend E.R. met in London in 1883 to discuss politics and others later joined them. Within a year British intellectuals such as George Bernard Shaw and Sidney Webb also joined. They named it the Fabian Society after Quintus Fabius Maximus, the Roman general whose strategies of wearing down opponents by delays led to the Roman victory over Hannibal. (c.f., National Health Insurance -- from Truman to Obama)

Shaw distinguished "the highly respectable Fabian Society" from other radical groups (like today's ACORN, OWS and communists). "The Fabian Society got rid of its Anarchists and Borrovians, and presented Socialism in the form of a series of parliamentary measures, thus making it possible for an ordinary respectable religious citizen to profess socialism and belong to a Socialist Society without any suspicion of lawlessness, exactly as he might profess himself a Conservative...."

Yet the Fabians' creed remained radical: Its goal was the "reorganization of society" with the extinction of private property and industrial capital from individual and class ownership, redistributing them to the "community for the general benefit." But the Fabians carefully hid their socialist philosophy saying "it was not desirable to make any change in the name by adding the word 'Socialist' to 'Fabian.'"IV Beneath their respectable sheepskin, however, the Fabians were host to Lenin and his Bolshevik followers holding a revolutionary conference in London before the revolution in Russia, and Bolsheviks were considered "comrades." Shaw, a highly respectable Fabian, called himself a "communist."


Let's shear off some of the wool and take a closer look at some of the radical Fabian policies. Shaw said that Socialism meant the "equality of income or nothing." You would be fed, clothed, lodged, taught and employed -- "whether you liked it or not." If the state discovered that you were not worth this trouble, "you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner." To understand the depth of Shaw's commitment to socialism, watch a clip of him in the movie The Soviet Story, a film by Edvins Snore. Visiting Russia in 1931, Shaw said that he was able to step into his grave comforted "with the knowledge that the civilization of the world will be saved and ...the new communist system is capable of leading mankind out of its present crisis...." Were the Fabians radical? Stuart Chase, an American Fabian, said that socialism could be enforced by firing squads if necessary. Chase wrote A New Deal, which Roosevelt used as a slogan.IV Though the Fabians believed in the same radical goals as the Socialists and Communists, there was a difference in methods. Make no mistake they wanted world revolution also, but, unlike their comrades who believed in attaining power quickly by violence, they worked through patient changes in law, government, morality, economics, culture and education. They worked to spread Socialism through newspapers, Parliament, school boards and by backing candidates of either party in elections -- penetration and infiltration. For example with newspapers, Shaw said their "policy has been to try to induce some of these regular papers to give a column or two to Socialism, calling it by whatever name they please." Their chief tool, however, was through the indoctrination of young scholars -- intellectuals referred to as "parlor Bolsheviki."

The Webbs and George Bernard Shaw founded the London School of Economics in 1895. Faculty and students have included Bertrand Russell, John F Kennedy, Pierre Trudeau, George Soros, Peter Orszag, Robert Rubin, Harold Laski (a later head of the British Fabian Society), George Papandreou, David Rockefeller and John Maynard Keynes. The Webbs visited the U.S. in 1888, and in 1889 Webbs' Socialism in England was circulated at Harvard and other schools in the U.S. In 1905 they incorporated the Intercollegiate Socialist Society and by 1908 there were Fabian chapters at Harvard, Princeton, NYU, Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania. But Harvard was considered the "transmission belt" for socialism -- and specifically its Department of Economics. The most influential theory within the Department of Economics was that of Keynes. Keynes' socialism advocates strict control of the means of production through the supply of credit and money rather than ownership advocated by Marx. This way the Fabian goal could change everything while maintaining the outward appearance of the sheepskin.

From these Ivy League campuses the seeds of socialism were planted in Washington during the early 1900's at the multiplying bureaucracies staffed by Fabian-indoctrinated theorists and professors. Norman Thomas, a Socialist, explained the utility of Keynes: "Keynes has had a great influence .... He represents a decisive break with laissez-faire capitalism." John Strachey, a communist who entered the British Fabian Society in 1943, explained that Keynes' influence resulted in capitalism being "regulated and controlled by a central authority....The principal instruments of its policy should be variations in interest, budgetary deficits, and surpluses, public works, and a redistribution of personal incomes in equalitarian direction."V

The key Fabians who introduced Keynes' theories on the U.S. were Felix Frankfurter and Walter Lippman, one of the founders of The New Republic. During World War I They both became friendly with Franklin D Roosevelt. Later in Roosevelt's new deal they both secured positions and Frankfurter was appointed to the Supreme Court. Over 300 of Frankfurter's students worked in strategic government posts. One of these was Alger Hiss, a student of Frankfurter's at Harvard Law School who later clerked for him at the Supreme Court. He also worked at the State Department and played a key role in the New Deal, at Yalta and in the formation of the United Nations. Contrary to the left's continued denials, the evidence against Hiss is overwhelming, as described by Shelton in Alger Hiss: Why He Chose Treason, --he was a communist and an asset to Soviet military intelligence. Thus we have the perfect elite wolf dressed like a lamb.

IAccusations that Obama is a socialist have met with immediate denials and have called them "dumb," or "name-calling" and "witch-hunting" while MSNBC falls back on "racist." The left uniformly call in a socialist to deny it such as Billy Wharton, co-chair of the Socialist Party USA.

II Stormer, John, None Dare Call It Treason, (New York: Buccaneer Books, 1964), 26, emphasis added.

IIIThis tactic of deception was copied by socialists in the U.S. In a classic, Roger Baldwin of the ACLU told an agitator: "Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise...We want to look patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions."

IVStormer, ibid. The influence of British Socialists didn't end with the New Deal but was evident during the Johnson administration: The Great Society" was a book written by Graham Wallas, an English socialist in 1914. The term was also used by the English socialist Harold Laski in his 1931 book Introduction to Politics.
.


Mary Nicholas

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Striker 2012/05/26 21:57:05
    Striker
    +1
    I get SO tired of the semantics and comparing one version of Force with another. Point? It is still, and always, FORCE. Point2 is that such Force can be initiated and maintained only by GOVERNments, Empires, Mafioso's and plain old GANGsters (meaning a horde in a Gang).

    Within any such assemblage of criminals (murderers, rapists and robbers) are Rulers -- those who make and enFORCE "laws", "rules" and "regulations. The normal way of supporting such is by criminal activities. The Rulers lead the Plunder, and share some of their Plunder with their soldiers, "sages", and bureaucrats sufficient to maintain and spread their powers.

    The names, communism, fabianism, fascism, nazism, socialism, etc, are merely different labels and somewhat different approaches to Force. I don't play such games, I merely call it collectivism, as it is always falsely presented as being for the "common good". Stealing the wealth of one for the good of some other (redistribution) results in zero gain to the general wealth and a reduction of both the motivation and the Liberty of all. Those who object too strenuously are jailed and/or starved and/or killed. The Right to Life is always secondary to the "common good". Such is NO way to run a railroad, or a community, a state, or a "nation".

    So...
    I get SO tired of the semantics and comparing one version of Force with another. Point? It is still, and always, FORCE. Point2 is that such Force can be initiated and maintained only by GOVERNments, Empires, Mafioso's and plain old GANGsters (meaning a horde in a Gang).

    Within any such assemblage of criminals (murderers, rapists and robbers) are Rulers -- those who make and enFORCE "laws", "rules" and "regulations. The normal way of supporting such is by criminal activities. The Rulers lead the Plunder, and share some of their Plunder with their soldiers, "sages", and bureaucrats sufficient to maintain and spread their powers.

    The names, communism, fabianism, fascism, nazism, socialism, etc, are merely different labels and somewhat different approaches to Force. I don't play such games, I merely call it collectivism, as it is always falsely presented as being for the "common good". Stealing the wealth of one for the good of some other (redistribution) results in zero gain to the general wealth and a reduction of both the motivation and the Liberty of all. Those who object too strenuously are jailed and/or starved and/or killed. The Right to Life is always secondary to the "common good". Such is NO way to run a railroad, or a community, a state, or a "nation".

    So never forget that Rulers are, by definition, criminals. Folks whine all the time about "corruption", can do nothing about it, yet then proceed to "vote" for yet another criminal to Rule them. Still mankind will not understand that Governments are always Force, and always fail. So therefore they merely replace one failure with another.
    (more)
  • JoeBtfsplk Striker 2012/05/26 22:38:21
    JoeBtfsplk
    The ideology promoted by Fabians and Fabian thinkers is called communitarianism, which is also sometimes referred to (by people like Tony Blair) as the ‘Third Way’. The Third Way refers to the synthesis of capitalism and socialism in the dialectic scheme.
    This dialectical synthesis, or outcome, is to be a collectivist form of government where all individualism is forcibly relinquished in the name of “unity” and complete and unwavering allegiance to the state under a scientific, socialistic dictatorship run by “experts.”
  • Striker JoeBtfsplk 2012/05/26 22:56:00
    Striker
    +1
    All of it stems from the same roots, with somewhat variable effects on their way to the same totalitarian force. When one is about to die or be otherwise devastated, there is no more time to contemplate one's navel.
  • JoeBtfsplk Striker 2012/05/26 23:09:45
    JoeBtfsplk
    +1
    I'll have to give mine another look - it's been quite a while!
  • Kaleokualoha 2012/05/26 17:13:45
    Kaleokualoha
    "Allen West was the latest to get his knuckles rapped for saying there were "about 78 to 81" members of the Democratic Party who are members of the Communist Party.I His crime, like McCarthy's, was in raising an uncomfortable subject"?

    RESPONSE: Hogwash! His "crime" was telling an absolute LIE!

    "We may never know who is or isn't a communist, socialist, Marxist, Stalinist or Leninist in Congress, since all socialists work by deception, define words with obscurities, and refuse to identify themselves, with exceptions like Dohrn and Van Jones."

    RESPONSE: Hogwash! "Bernard "Bernie" Sanders (born September 8, 1941) is the junior United States Senator from Vermont. He previously represented Vermont's at-large district in the United States House of Representatives. Sanders also served as mayor of Burlington, Vermont.

    Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist,[1][2] and has praised European social democracy (though he has also criticized its contemporary "Third Way" departure). He is the first person elected to the U.S. Senate to identify as a socialist.[3] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Just as Chicken Little started a "sky is falling" hysteria based on a falling acorn, so too are various critics pushing a "socialist" or "Marxist" Obama hysteria based on Obama's ec...






















    "Allen West was the latest to get his knuckles rapped for saying there were "about 78 to 81" members of the Democratic Party who are members of the Communist Party.I His crime, like McCarthy's, was in raising an uncomfortable subject"?

    RESPONSE: Hogwash! His "crime" was telling an absolute LIE!

    "We may never know who is or isn't a communist, socialist, Marxist, Stalinist or Leninist in Congress, since all socialists work by deception, define words with obscurities, and refuse to identify themselves, with exceptions like Dohrn and Van Jones."

    RESPONSE: Hogwash! "Bernard "Bernie" Sanders (born September 8, 1941) is the junior United States Senator from Vermont. He previously represented Vermont's at-large district in the United States House of Representatives. Sanders also served as mayor of Burlington, Vermont.

    Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist,[1][2] and has praised European social democracy (though he has also criticized its contemporary "Third Way" departure). He is the first person elected to the U.S. Senate to identify as a socialist.[3] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Just as Chicken Little started a "sky is falling" hysteria based on a falling acorn, so too are various critics pushing a "socialist" or "Marxist" Obama hysteria based on Obama's economic policies. Not only do they conveniently forget that the 2008 bailout was initiated by the Bush administration, but they also seem to have forgotten some basics from Econ 101. They could easily avoid such non sequitur nonsense by following the evidence instead of jumping to conclusions.

    According to dictionary.com, socialism is "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. In Marxist theory, it is the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles."

    Please note that it is the stage FOLLOWING capitalism. Capitalism has many forms in a mixed economy, with public (collective) ownership of various enterprises based upon economic conditions. Limited public ownership does not comprise Marxist socialism, which requires complete public ownership. When controlled by a police state, however, limited public ownership may become fascism ("national socialism"), Marxist socialism, or even "perfect implementation of collectivist principles." Limited public ownership occurs at virtually every point on the mixed economy spectrum.

    Every advocate of greater government economic control might be called a "socialist," but none are true socialists unless they advocate the complete elimination of private enterprise, which requires the complete replacement of capitalism with collectivism. True (laissez-faire) capitalism means zero government control of private enterprise, which is economic anarchy. Neither of these extremes works in the long run. Every successful economy is a mixed economy, existing somewhere on a spectrum between both extremes. Every successful economy is part capitalist and part socialist. They all contain a mix of private and public ownership, and they all have some government control of private enterprise. The only relevant question is "WHERE on this spectrum can we achieve the greatest success?" The rise of Asian economies, with their varying degrees of centralized planning, proves that economic planning helps economic development.

    Both laissez faire capitalism and true communism are artificial constructs, as impossible to sustain as cold fusion. Every successful society requires private enterprise regulated by public policy, regardless of Ayn Rand's fantasies. Extremists on either fringe are equally delusional. In some ways regulation is a necessary evil like body fat: too much or too little are both lethal. The normal tendency is to add layers with age. The challenge is to find the level that will produce the optimum outcome, all things considered.

    Unless someone advocates the complete replacement of capitalism with collectivism, they do not truly advocate socialism or communism. To accuse them of either, when they have not explicitly advocated as much themselves, suggests either unfamiliarity with mixed economies or intellectual dishonesty. Even George W. Bush and John McCain were accused of advocating socialism based upon their support of 2008 bailout legislation.

    The bottom line is simple. If you consider any variation of a mixed economy, including ANY public ownership or regulation of industry to be "socialism," then the United States and ALL other economies are "socialist." The debate is over, because by that definition we have been "socialist" since the 18th century. If you only consider complete collectivism to be "socialism," according to Marxist theory, then no successful economy is actually "socialist." The closest to a Marxist socialist economy is the economic basket case, North Korea. If you consider socialism to occur at some other point on the spectrum between unregulated capitalism and Marxist socialism, then any such point would be arbitrary.

    To accuse a mixed economy advocate of being a socialist or communist suggests that you believe that ANY degree of government regulation qualifies as "socialism," or that you believe that any regulation beyond an indefinite "trigger point" qualifies as "socialism,", and that YOU get to set the trigger point. The "trigger point" explanation reminds me of the egocentric explorer who says that anyone who explores farther into dangerous territory is a fool, but anyone who doesn’t explore as far as he does is a coward. His arrogance presumes that his own boundaries are common standards.

    Marxist "socialism," in contrast to European "democratic socialism," requires collective ownership of the means of production in lieu of capitalism. That is the death of private enterprise. We may or may not be on a path to collectivism, just as a dating couple may or may not be on a path to pregnancy. Traveling on a path in any direction does not imply any specific goal. For example, traveling on Interstate 10 does not imply that either coast is the goal.

    "Direction" is one thing. "Goal" is another. All mixed economies exist at some point in the spectrum between the fatal terminuses of unregulated capitalism and true socialism. In most Marxist states, however, capitalism reappeared as people recognized the lethal consequences of such extremes. Russia, China and other communist nations now recognize the virtue of mixed economies. They learned the hard way.

    I await empirical evidence, instead of specious speculation, that Obama wants to eliminate capitalism by moving to that extreme. To say Obama advocates the goal of socialism, based upon his movement on the spectrum instead of being based on his explicit advocacy, is to create a straw man. It is intellectually dishonest and unworthy of serious debate.

    The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
    - Proverbs 1:7
    (more)
  • Stacie 2012/05/26 15:19:28
    Stacie
    +1
    If the shoe fits......
  • Christy 2012/05/26 14:59:28
  • DeeB 2012/05/26 14:55:49
    DeeB
    +1
    I see it more as fascism. These people are as sick as they come and it is our duty as Americans to stop them in their tracks.
  • JoeBtfsplk DeeB 2012/05/26 15:19:54
    JoeBtfsplk
    +1
    Their fanaticism stems from over-population and how to control it.
    It becomes more evident every decade.
    They are in no hurry.
  • DeeB JoeBtfsplk 2012/05/26 16:59:17
    DeeB
    Well I don't know about that, things seem to be going quite fast.
  • irish -liberty or death! 2012/05/26 14:11:33
    irish -liberty or death!
    +1
    by what ever name you choose to call deception ,it is still deception and has been used against the masses for centuries. it seems that there are always a few psychopaths that manage to gain control of our govts,cultures etc etc and tweak our lives any way they see fit. its a game to them. otherwise they would be bored silly wouldn't they?
  • JoeBtfsplk irish -... 2012/05/26 14:22:27 (edited)
    JoeBtfsplk
    +1
    I think it more serious then(than) that.

    They are succeeding.

    edited correct spelling
  • DeeB JoeBtfsplk 2012/05/26 14:59:07
    DeeB
    +1
    Only because they did a damned good job of dumbing down the people. It is our job to wake them from their comas.
  • JoeBtfsplk DeeB 2012/05/26 15:16:24
    JoeBtfsplk
    +1
    I have some firecrackers in a drawer...
  • DeeB JoeBtfsplk 2012/05/26 17:04:16
    DeeB
    +1
    LOL! I think you'll need something a little bigger!! bomb gif
  • irish -... JoeBtfsplk 2012/05/27 12:30:54
    irish -liberty or death!
    +1
    yes they are. sigh!

News & Politics

2013/05/20 03:59:20

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals