In Islam, it’s called Takia (it’s okay to lie)

Never Call Socialism by Its Right Name

By Mary Nicholas

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.

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. All they cared about was perception.(III)

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.

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.

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….” (eg: Van Jones, ” Drop the radical pose for the radical end.”)

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.

I’m Smarter than You!

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.

(I)Accusations 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.
(III)This 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.”
(IV)Stormer, 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.
(V)Ibid., 183-4.

Love Him or Hate him, He’s Right

Two Cheers For Glenn Beck, With Some Reservations

By Jerry Bowyer

Glenn Beck’s analyses of the history of authoritarian movements has many people concerned, and justifiably so. Most recently Beck has been laying out the ways in which the progressive movement in the U.S. has been following a three phase strategy to undermine the free-market constitutional order traditional to America.

He has also uncovered ways in which progressive propaganda on behalf of President Obama taps surreptitiously into language of earlier extremist thought, most notably Stuart Chase’s book,” The Road We Are Traveling,” and his invocation of Political System X. Chase was a Fabian socialist who was influential in the left wing of the New Deal, and may have coined the phrase ‘New Deal’.

Beck argues that phase 1 of the program, which focused largely on the institutionalization of the socialist movement and the de-legitimatization of traditional free institutions, has been completed over roughly the past 100 years. Phase 2 of the agenda, largely a matter of creating an escalating series of crises, Beck argues can happen ‘at lightning speed’. Phase 3 refers to a time in which the people, tired of chaos and crisis, permit the Left to grab power and perhaps even to liquidate inconvenient groups of people.

There is a lot to appreciate in Beck’s work, and I do not share the tendency among some in the conservative institutional elite to deride him. When someone like a Peggy Noonan at the Wall Street Journal describes Beck as ‘insane’, she may well be responding more to the social pressures of the Manhattan cocktail party circuit than to anything Beck has actually said. Frankly, I’m tired of conservatives, such as David Frum and others, who have made a career out of appearing in liberal media venues to ritually denounce Beck or Palin or whoever is the liberal hate icon of the month, as beyond the pale.

In fact, I share Beck’s association of Obama with the Fabian socialist movement, and did so very early, perhaps earlier even than Beck did.

Personally, I like Glenn Beck. I appeared as a guest on his TV show when he was on CNN. He did something which TV broadcasters almost never do: he talked to me (through my ear piece) during the break. He told me “You are my absolutely favorite economic commentator,” no doubt in keeping with the well-known Beck hyperbole. I told him that he was something which I’ve found to quite rare in broadcast TV, an actual vulnerable human being.

So, mutual admiration aside, do I agree completely with Beck? No, I do not. I’ve found myself talking with investors often over the last couple of years who need to be coaxed down off the ledge of despair over alleged imminent depressions, hyperinflations, and dollar collapses. I’ve seen analysts on his former Fox show running elaborate scenarios about horrible economic events to unfold in matters of months, if not days or weeks. I am increasingly running into investors, often Beck watchers, who have thrown aside the ancient wisdom of asset diversification in order to jump with both feet into precious metals.

What I think Beck is missing is a sense of depth perception. He sees a danger ahead, but, can’t seem to focus his eyes in order to see how far ahead it is. Taking what he no doubt believes is the safest approach, and one that accords with the emotional intensity of broadcasting, he pronounces the danger to be imminent. Beck’s shows are anxiety-inducing; they’re meant to be. In fact, a colleague of mine was advised by his psychiatrist to stop watching the shows because they were triggering unhealthy anxiety episodes in him. The psychiatrist is an evangelical Christian who is not by nature inclined to be unsympathetic to Beck’s worldview.

I am not the only one who notices Beck’s lack of depth perception and tendency to telescope disastrous events…

“The one thing I always get wrong is timing. I told you three years ago that they were going to print money, that inflation was coming, that trouble was coming, three years ago. Before Bear Stearns collapsed. And I said the stock market was going to crash. I didn’t know when. I used to tell you when things were happening, but I noticed, I see everything as a flat wall. Everything I see in the future is just right here, right now. And it used to give me real high anxiety. ”

So, let’s leave aside for the moment the timing issues, which we as investors must pay close attention to, and take up the issues about the direction of our country, which we as citizens must also pay close attention to.

Beck is right and his critics are wrong about a number of things:

The progressive movement is totalitarian at its core. Whenever it has been allowed free reign, it has become highly repressive, and in some cases, genocidal.

Large swaths of the liberal coalition are, in fact, progressives, especially those in the emotion-forming industries such as film, TV and music.

It can happen here. No nation is immune from the totalitarian impulse and countries which had once been the high water marks of western civilization such as Italy, Greece, Turkey and Germany have all succumbed to totalitarian impulses at one time or another.

American economic hegemony is not inevitable. Every other great nation which has adopted a fiat currency has seen that currency eventually collapse. Every other nation whose currency enjoyed the exorbitant privilege of reserve currency status, has lost that privilege.

Most nations which have reached our level of public indebtedness, eventually suffered severe economic crises.

But, when and how, and most urgently, how quickly do events like this happen to nations such as the U.S.? Yes, Rome fell, and so did Byzantium, Spain, and the British Empires. But how long did it take to fall? How many reprieves did those nations get? How fragile are nations like the United States in terms of culture and political institutions compared the great nations which collapsed in ruin? Only time will tell.

Attribution: Forbes Online