Fabianism Vs. Leninism, and How it Parallels Our Current Situation

[BuddyRey]

You may think it heretical of me to ponder correlations between the Communist Revolution and the Ron Paul Revolution, as the first was an effort to shackle mankind, while the latter is an effort to break those shackles. But, even if the two revolutions are complete ideological opposites of one another, there are some things we can learn from the tactics of our enemies.

As illustrated by the very informative videos G. Edward Griffin participated in on this topic (http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Leninism+Vs.+Fabianism&hl=en&sitesearch=),
there was a sharp division in the mainstream of socialist thought near the dawn of the 20th century, resulting in the emergence of two distinct factions; Leninism and Fabianism.

The Leninists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism) believed that the only way to secure their ideal society was with swift and violent overthrow of the government, to attack and topple it from the outside. The Fabian Socialists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabianism) had a far more subtle plan; to clandestinely and incrementally enter the government power structure they loathed, to warp and subvert it from within.

So, what can we learn from the socialist divide? You can answer this question with remarkable ease by analyzing, in retrospect, who was more successful? The Leninists thrived for a time and accomplished their aim of setting up a despotic and oppressive regime in a relatively short period of time, but were soon mired in in-fighting, power struggles, betrayal, and eventual economic collapse.

The Fabianists are still working toward their ends, which have taken decades upon decades to advance to this point. Upon cursory examination, it would seem that the Fabianists failed. But a deeper analysis reveals the very opposite. Fabianists have attained levels of power with scope and influence far outreaching the Soviet States. One committed Fabian Socialist, Gordon Brown, is now the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

John Maynard Keynes, George Bernard Shaw, Bertrand Russel, and H.G. Wells, all of whom are still considered luminaries of modern thought, were members of the Fabian Society. This is not some whacked-out "Illuminati Lizard-Men" theory, but a real group, with a website you can visit yourself.

Nobody was around to stop the gradual march of the Fabianists, because nobody noticed them...until it was too late.

So, how do we undo the damage the Fabian Socialists have done, the extensive and unnoticed measures they've taken to insidiously unravel the tenets of Constitutional Government, Individual Liberty, and natural/God-given sovereignty of each human being equal among kings and heads of state? My opinion is, the best way to combat Fabianism is to adapt to it, not ideologically, but tactically.

I know it hurts, but at all costs, stay in the two-party system!!! We, as patriots and friends of liberty, cannot afford to let our understandable bitterness and disillusionment scatter us to the four winds. We need to take a lesson from our oppressors and reclaim our Republic in the same manner by which it was stolen from us!

[JoshLowry]

Natalie has some explaining to do...

She's a Fabianist.

[Winston]

Hey BR,

I saw that video not too long ago myself. Very instructive. We need to take back our institutions one by one from the PTA to the congress and we CAN do that if we keep organizing and support one another.

To use another analogy... in a guerilla war, the party that is the most committed wins.

[humanic]

Good post! EDIT: I'd add one important thing. See Post #8 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1296148#post1296148) below.

For more information on this topic, please read and watch the following by G. Edward Griffin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw6zhIiGCvg):

Part 1: The Chasm (http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf)
Part 2: Secret Organizations and Hidden Agendas (http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/futurecalling2.pdf)
Part 3: Days of Infamy (http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/futurecalling3.pdf)
Part 4: The War on Terrorism (http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/futurecalling4.pdf)
Part 5: An Idea Whose Hour Has Come (http://video.google.com/url?docid=6015291679758430958&esrc=sr1&ev=v&len=5017&q=idea%2Bwhose%2Btime&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3 Fdocid%3D6015291679758430958&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D6015291679758430958% 26q%3Didea%2Bwhose%2Btime%26total%3D606%26start%3D 0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D 0&usg=AL29H20_QDZxhTLRxTnUYrZjTjXRVEVqjQ)

[Mister Grieves]

Interesting post.

The only problem I see with it, is that every year we are losing rights and that there may not be enough time to slowly take things back.

[acptulsa]

It seems to me to be a better argument for gaining victory electorially as opposed to blood revolution, rather than a strong argument for the two party system vs. a multi-party system. Nonetheless, if it works without blood, I'm all for it.

Long live the Constitution! It gives us the power we need to save it!

[Winston]

Interesting post.

The only problem I see with it, is that every year we are losing rights and that there may not be enough time to slowly take things back.


We should not only slowly take back our institutions (taking a page from the Fabians) but also take a page from Ghandi's Nonviolent Noncooperation. It is not a passive movement but an ACTIVE one. As he said, "The goal of nonviolent noncooperation is to provoke a response." He went to say that the response will be heavy handed and point out to even more people the injustice of those in power.

These combined strategies will not only help to get back the levers of power in our communities, states, and the nation, but help to grow our movement exponentially.

The truth is we have no idea how fast this will grow if we try. As Dr. Paul said in countless interviews he had NO idea people would be so receptive to his liberty message. We surprised him. I am sure we will surprise ourselves as long as we keep up the movement.

As John Quincy Adams said, "Duty is Ours...Results are God's"

:cool:

[humanic]

Interesting post.

The only problem I see with it, is that every year we are losing rights and that there may not be enough time to slowly take things back.

That is the one thing I would clarify: we do not have to work slowly like the Fabian Socialists do. We have no speed limit.

The Fabians have been working in secret towards their goal of a one world system based on the model of collectivism. They have had to do it this way-- through stealth, acting as wolves in sheeps' clothing-- because the majority of people do not approve of their vision for the future of the world, nor their means of achieving that end, when they fully understand it. It is a hierarchical system in which anything can be "justified" if it is for the "good" of the "group", even lying to start wars or murdering children. What's more, it is those at the top of the "pyramid" who do most of the deciding on what is and what is not "for the good of the group", not the masses.

This is why they have to work so slowly.

We, on the other hand, have a message of individual liberty, freedom, and justice for all, which is very popular when it is fully understood. It is the message of the revolutionary document, the U.S. Constitution, upon which this nation was founded. We do not need to hide. We do not need to keep our message nor our goals a secret. We do not have to keep our true agenda hidden. We want the truth about what they are doing and what we are doing to spread as quickly as possible, because the truth is on our side.

As journalist Jim Tucker says, "Evil is done under cover of darkness. Good works are done in the sunshine."

Unlike the Fabians, we can work to take back the power centers of society (http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/) as fast as our numbers and commitment allow it, for we do our work in the sunshine.

[acptulsa]

We should not only slowly take back our institutions (taking a page from the Fabians) but also take a page from Ghandi's Nonviolent Noncooperation. It is not a passive movement but an ACTIVE one. As he said, "The goal of nonviolent noncooperation is to provoke a response." He went to say that the response will be heavy handed and point out to even more people the injustice of those in power.

As in where people ask why Dr. Paul isn't being allowed to speak in the debates, or where we make reasonable arguments in favor of our man on the 'net and people flame us. Works.

[BuddyRey]

There's another fact I forgot to bring up, one which further points to the increased efficacy of political movements which sought to consolidate power from inside whatever the current societal processes were, rather than from outside, whether the ultimate goal was Communism, Fascism, or any other ideological system.

Hitler was democratically elected! :eek:

[Tdcci]

Hitler was democratically elected! :eek:

He 'inspired' people, gave them hope. Every election year a candidate like this appears.

[WilliamC]

One voter at a time.

Keep working, keep talking, keep spreading the message.

One voter at a time.

At some point a critical mass will be reached, and what we've seen over the last year with the rEVOLution will look like a small hill in our mountain of success.

[Winston]

As in where people ask why Dr. Paul isn't being allowed to speak in the debates, or where we make reasonable arguments in favor of our man on the 'net and people flame us. Works.

Give it time. Water destroys the rock not through brute force but through pressure and persistence.

When Fox didnt let Paul in the debate, it only served to prove our point. Our pressure and success made the establishment afraid and they made a misstep. We prevoked them into that misstep.

At that point, alot of my GOP friends who teased me about Paul stopped teasing me. They emailed me that they were ashamed of Fox. Then whenever I brought up Paul, they went out of their way to find platform issues they agreed with. Of course many of them didnt "convert", but their attitude about him changed.

Also, do NOT base ANY opinion on the harassment of online posters. I have been doing that since 2000 and I can tell you, it is generally a mob rule mentality. Your time is MUCH better spent getting more and more understanding of the issues (we can all learn more as we grow the movement), and then talking to family, friends, and people in person. Spread the ideas of Paul's platform. Groups will spring up (we will build them) and candidates at all levels will emerge that take on Paul's platform. That is how we will win.

one more quote for you....


In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. - Mark Twain

Get this book. If it is what I think it is, we will have even better direction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YqJICwtRTs


Don't lose faith brother, human instinct is on our side. All we have to do is remind people that is what their instinct really is.

:cool:

[acptulsa]

Critical mass. Yup, that is the ticket. The economy keeps sliding and the boxes keep coming in from Iraq. Just keep talking about the solution. Sooner or later it will spread itself.

Talk fast, though--sooner is much better than later.

[virgil47]

BuddyRey +!,000,000

[acptulsa]

He 'inspired' people, gave them hope. Every election year a candidate like this appears.

Hitler also pandered to them shamelessly.

[nullvalu]

Natalie has some explaining to do...

She's a Fabianist.

Are you kidding? How did you not catch this?

[Yom]

bump.

[Ohioproduct4Paul]

I thought Griffin said "Leninism" was to take over a country from within?? Ex: They claim to be the staunchest "Nationals" around and once they get the power they carry out a communist agenda.

So would my example be "Leninism" or "Fabianism"??

Me confused.....:(

[nullvalu]

I thought Griffin said "Leninism" was to take over a country from within?? Ex: They claim to be the staunchest "Nationals" around and once they get the power they carry out a communist agenda.

So would my example be "Leninism" or "Fabianism"??

Me confused.....:(

Basically:

Leninism=Attain power by any means necessary
Fabianism=Attain power by infiltrating power centers and gradually causing social shifts

Leninism=Force socialism down poeple's throats
Fabianism=Make people think they want socialism

[Ohioproduct4Paul]

Oh I see Nullvalu, (I think)


So Leninists can embrace principles of fabianism to carry out their agendas??

I guess fabianism would fall into the category of "any means necessary"??

Am I understanding it correctly now??

[Broadlighter]

From Omar Khayyam:

Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire
to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,
would we not shatter it to bits
and then remould it nearer to the hearts desire?

This is the poetic inspiration for the Fabians to make war on the world, 'shatter it to bits and then remould it to the hearts desire.' By getting into the power centers they get their hands on the means of making war.

The question is, do we have it within ourselves to secure our liberties from these tyrants without bloodshed? History has shown that radical political and social change more often than not came about violently. This is the same excuse the Neo-cons make promoting American empire around the world.

I think the best way to challenge them is to point out how their methods are essentially coercive and be able to rationally define their means of coercion. Once people understand this, they'll know how their freedoms are being coopted. We have to be able to paint every proposed action by the Fabians as coercive. We have to recognize the coercion in all its subtle ways and call it out, every opportunity we see.

[Broadlighter]

Oh I see Nullvalu, (I think)


So Leninists can embrace principles of fabianism to carry out their agendas??

I guess fabianism would fall into the category of "any means necessary"??

Am I understanding it correctly now??


Lenninists and Fabians differ in their methods, but they agree on the same goal, global domination by collectivism.

[RayIan]

Is Hillary Clinton a Fabian?

Here's an interesting article by Llewellyn Rockwell of the Mises Institute titled " The New Fabians".

http://www.lewrockwell.com/archives/fm/4-93.html

[JoshLowry]

Are you kidding? How did you not catch this?

I'm kidding. Her last name sounds like Fabian. :p

[torchbearer]

fabians also known as rhodesians...after cecil rhodes

[kill the banks]

good thread thx

kill the banks

[OptionsTrader]

Bumping "An Idea Whose Time Has Come" video by G. Edward Griffin of Freedom Force International.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6015291679758430958

If you aren't going to watch it, then at least read his group's Creed of Freedom.

THE CREED OF FREEDOM

INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS
I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.
I believe that a just government derives its power solely from the governed. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.

SUPREMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary functions of just government is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE
I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one's own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people's money through coercion of law.

EQUALITY UNDER LAW
I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style, or political opinion. Likewise, no class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under law.

PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
I believe that the proper role of government is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and once that power is granted, there are those who will seek it for their advantage. It always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If government is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it is also powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens; nothing more. That government is best which governs least.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE THREE COMMANDMENTS OF FREEDOM

The Creed of Freedom is based on five principles. However, in day-to-day application, they can be reduced to just three codes of conduct. I consider them to be The Three Commandments of Freedom:

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
Do not sacrifice the rights of any individual or minority for the assumed rights of the group.

EQUALITY UNDER LAW
Do not endorse any law that does not apply to all citizens equally.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE
Do not use coercion for any purpose except to protect human life, liberty, or property

[sratiug]

Bumping "An Idea Whose Time Has Come" video by G. Edward Griffin of Freedom Force International.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6015291679758430958

If you aren't going to watch it, then at least read his group's Creed of Freedom.

THE CREED OF FREEDOM

INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS
I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.
I believe that a just government derives its power solely from the governed. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.

SUPREMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary functions of just government is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE
I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one's own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people's money through coercion of law.

EQUALITY UNDER LAW
I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style, or political opinion. Likewise, no class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under law.

PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
I believe that the proper role of government is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and once that power is granted, there are those who will seek it for their advantage. It always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If government is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it is also powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens; nothing more. That government is best which governs least.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE THREE COMMANDMENTS OF FREEDOM

The Creed of Freedom is based on five principles. However, in day-to-day application, they can be reduced to just three codes of conduct. I consider them to be The Three Commandments of Freedom:

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
Do not sacrifice the rights of any individual or minority for the assumed rights of the group.

EQUALITY UNDER LAW
Do not endorse any law that does not apply to all citizens equally.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE
Do not use coercion for any purpose except to protect human life, liberty, or property

Shouldn't we all join Freedom Force International? Or am I missing something?

[WilliamC]

Shouldn't we all join Freedom Force International? Or am I missing something?

No one is stopping you.

Nothing stopped me.

It's just a matter of translating these ideas into action.

The internet is a great tool, but it's not where the battles will be won.

Those must be fought in the real world.

[Truth Warrior]

A CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER
http://www.constitution.org/col/cuddy_nwo.htm

Sure seems Fabianesque to me. :)

[pcosmar]

Interesting post.

The only problem I see with it, is that every year we are losing rights and that there may not be enough time to slowly take things back.

I see that too.
I am working on educating everyone I can.
This is the only option to effect PEACEFUL change.
I do not like the alternatives. But will be ready to accept it if necessary.
The last "box" is the last option.