Jerry Bowyer, 11.03.08, 12:32 PM EST
Barack Obama is a Fabian socialist. I should know; I was raised by one. My Grandfather worked as a union machinist for Ingersoll Rand (nyse: IR - news - people ) during the day. In the evenings he tended bar and read books. After his funeral, I went back home and started working my way through his library, starting with T.W. Arnold's The Folklore of Capitalism. This was my introduction to the Fabian socialists.
Fabians believed in gradual nationalization of the economy through manipulation of the democratic process. Breaking away from the violent revolutionary socialists of their day, they thought that the only real way to effect "fundamental change" and "social justice" was through a mass movement of the working classes presided over by intellectual and cultural elites. Before TV it was stage plays, written by George Bernard Shaw and thousands of inferior "realist" playwrights dedicated to social change. John Cusack's character in Woody Allen's "Bullets Over Broadway" captures the movement rather well.
Arnold taught me to question everyone--my president, my priest and my parents. Well, almost everyone. I wasn't supposed to question the Fabian intellectuals themselves. That's the Fabian MO, relentless cultural and journalistic attacks on everything that is, and then a hard pitch for the hope of what might be.
That's Obama's world.
He's telling the truth when he says that he doesn't agree with Bill Ayers' violent bombing tactics, but it's a tactical disagreement. Why use dynamite when mass media and community organizing work so much better? Who needs Molotov when you've got Saul Alinski?
So here is the playbook: The left will identify, freeze, personalize and polarize an industry, probably health care. It will attempt to nationalize one-fifth of the U.S. economy through legislative action. They will focus, as Lenin did, on the "commanding heights" of the economy, not the little guy.
As Obama said, "the smallest" businesses will be exempt from fines for not "doing the right thing" in offering employer-based health care coverage. Health will not be nationalized in one fell swoop; they have been studying the failures of Hillary Care. Instead, a parallel system will be created, funded by surcharges on business payroll, which will be superior to many private plans.
The old system will be forced to subsidize the new system and there will be a gradual shift from the former to the latter. The only coercion will be the fines, not the participation. A middle-class entitlement will have been created.
It may not be health care first; it might be energy, though I suspect that energy will be nationalized much more gradually. The offshore drilling ban that was allowed to lapse legislatively will be reinstated through executive means. It may be an executive order, but might just as well be a permit reviewing system that theoretically allows drilling but with endless levels of objection and appeal from anti-growth groups. Wind and solar, on the other hand, will have no permitting problems at all, and a heavy taxpayer subsidy at their backs.
The banking system has already been partially nationalized. Bush and Paulson intend for their share purchases to be only non-voting preferred shares, but the law does not specify that. How hard will it be for Obama, new holder of $700 billion in bank equity, to demand "accountability" and a "voice" for the taxpayers?
The capital markets are not freezing up now, mostly because of what has happened, although community organizers' multidecade push for affirmative-action mortgages has done enormous harm to the credit system. Markets are forward looking.
A quick review of the socialist takeovers in Venezuela in 1999, Spain in 2004 and Italy in 2006 show the same pattern--equity markets do most of their plummeting before the Chavez's of the world take power. Investors anticipate the policy shift in advance; that's their job.
It's not just equity markets, though; debt markets do the same thing. Everywhere I turn I hear complaints about bankers "hoarding" capital. "Hoarding" is a word we've heard often from violent socialists like Lenin and Mao. We also hear it from the democratic left as we did during the 1930s in America. The banks, we're told, are greedy and miserly, holding onto capital that should be deployed into the marketplace.
Well, which is it, miserly or greedy? They're not the same thing. Banks make money borrowing low and lending high. In fact, they can borrow very, very low right now, as they could during the Great Depression.
So why don't they lend? Because socialism is a very unkind environment for lenders. Some of the most powerful members of Congress are speaking openly about repudiating mortgage covenants. Local officials have already done so by simply refusing to foreclose on highly delinquent borrowers. Then, there's the oldest form of debt repudiation, inflation. Even if you get your money back, it will not be worth anything. Who would want to lend in an environment like this?
Will Obama's be the strong-man socialism of a Chavez, or the soft socialism that Clement Atlee used to defeat Churchill after WWII? I don't know, but I suspect something kind of in between. Despite right-wing predictions that we won't see Rush shut down by Fairness Doctrine fascists. We won't see Baptist ministers hauled off in handcuffs for anti-sodomy sermons. It will more likely be a matter of paperwork. Strong worded letters from powerful lawyers in and out of government to program directors and general mangers of radio stations. Ominous references to license renewal.
The psychic propaganda assault will be powerful. The cyber-brown-shirts will spew hate, the union guys will flood talk shows with switchboard-collapsing swarms of complaint calls aimed at those hosts who "go beyond the pale" in their criticisms of Obama. In concert with pop culture outlets like The Daily Show and SNL, Obama will use his podium to humiliate and demonize those of us who don't want to come together and heal the planet.
You've heard of the bully pulpit, right? Well, then get ready, because you're about to see the bully part.
Jerry Bowyer is chief economist of Benchmark Financial Network and a CNBC contributor.
Tags:
The Fabian Society is a very old group originating in England in 1884, with the purpose of forming a single, global socialist state. They get their name from the Roman general Fabius, who used carefully planned strategies to slowly wear down his enemies over a long period of time to obtain victory. "Fabian Socialism" uses incremental change over a long period of time to slowly transform a state as opposed to using violent revolution for change. It is essentially socialism by stealth. Their original emblem was a shield with a wolf in sheep's clothing holding a flag with the letters F.S. Today the international symbol of the Fabian Society is a turtle, with the motto below: "When I strike, I strike hard."
Fabian Society members included H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb, Beatrice Webb, Annie Besant, Graham Wallas, Tony Blair and Australia's new 'Prime Minister' Julia Gillard, as New Zeal recently exposed.
The Fabian Window is a stained-glass window on display at the London School of Economics, and depicts Sidney Webb and Edward R. Pease hammering the earth on an anvil beneath the Fabian Society emblem. At the top of the window are the words "Remould it nearer to the heart's desire."
To give you an idea of the type of world these people would like to 'remould', here is a quote from George Bernard Shaw: "Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well." The ultimate Nanny State, with no free will or right to choose; you are owned by the elites and discarded when you are no longer any use.
Fabian Society members founded the British Labour Party, the London School of Economics, the International Court of Justice at The Hague, and were largely involved in the creation of the UN and the League of Nations before it. They have enormous influence in global matters, yet hardly anyone knows who they are and what they stand for. They are very strong advocates for the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming pseudoscience because they are the types of people who have hijacked the environmental movement in order to use it to their political advantage. Their intent is to use environmental issues as a means to cause people to unite and demand that the issues be fixed, intending us to demand a global government that has the authority to 'fix' global warming because sovereign national governments lack that ability. The UN's Agenda 21 is an example of a Fabian Society program that sets international requirements for how people must live, learn, travel, eat and communicate. Its sole purpose is control of people, not protection of the environment.
Fabian Society members have infiltrated national and regional governments worldwide, some of them control governments. Local Fabian Societies will often describe themselves as 'left-leaning think tanks' and the like, to try and deceive people as to their true beliefs. Understandably, many members are often reluctant to admit their affiliation.
Socialist is too soft a word to use for these people, their idea of a perfect world more resembles a system "fascistic at its core and administered through a form of scientific socialism." The result is a 'communitarian' society where individualism must be relinquished for the betterment of the state. I think most of us don't want to live in a world like that, but our leaders have made up their minds and will not stop striving for it regardless of what the public thinks.
http://theweathereye.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/the-fabian-society/
Looks more like a 'Fascist' to me!
regardles of what Its called Fabian Society /fascism or communist we are seeing it right in frount of our eye's all over the world if we don't submitt to there way of thinking they will make you disapeir we are owned by the elites and discarded when you are no longer any use.
True, but the people will not own it nor the party except in the sense that the party is the corporation.
Splitting hairs perchance so, but the best definition is the best to use.
Attention/Intention, is in the details, minute as they may be :)!
I can think of a few better choice adjectives for this illegal criminal bastard than "Fabian Socialist"
Hi Chip: so far so good my C is in check:) I found this site and could'nt stop reading this' please cheeck it out
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?article...
"Destroying the New World Order"
THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE SITE!
© 2024 Created by truth. Powered by
Comment On This Story