A Patriots Journey

The Fabian Society and its War on America.

 

Today we hear a great deal about Progressives in America but fully understanding Progressivism begins through the exploration of its roots and those roots begin in The Fabian Society.  The Fabian Society began in England in 1887 by a relatively small group of intellectual elitists who embraced Marxist Socialism forced upon a society through slow gradual and incremental steps.  The logo (pictured above) is a symbol of the Fabian Society. One should immediately questions why an organization would consider using a shield that pictures a wolf in sheep’s clothing as an image to promote their beliefs and the answer should be an obvious one.  It is the arrogance of the intellectual elite.  More importantly though should be the question “If they are the wolf, who are the sheep?”

The gradual transition to a Marxist Socialist regime is also represented in another image popular with Fabian Socialists.

 

The Fabian’s gave this gradual change a policy directive. They called it:

“The Doctrine of Inevability of Gradulaism”

This doctrine established that “without breach of continuity or abrupt change of the entire social issue,” by infiltrating educational institutions, government agencies, and political parties. Prominent Fabian and writer, George Bernard Shaw, revealed that their goal was to be achieved by “stealth, intrigue, subversion, and the deception of never calling socialism by its right name.”

George Bernard Shaw was a beloved satirist in England who is still noted for his wit and in educational circles, some of that wit is carefully concealed although Shaw himself never concealed his intent.

“I don’t want to punish anybody, but there are an extraordinary number of people who I might want to kill…I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board just as he might come before the income tax commissioner and say every 5 years or every 7 years…just put them there and say , ‘Sir or madam will you be kind enough to justify your existence…if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little bit more then clearly we cannot use the big organization of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive. Because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.’

-George Bernard Shaw

This is the core of Eugenics, or the philosophy of  applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population, usually referring to human populations.

Shaw also said “A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber.  A great many people would simply have to be put out of existence simply because its wastes other peoples time to look at them”

Shaw is calling for the program implemented by Germany to purge its society of those the government deemed drains upon their society.  Shaw’s principles put into action gave birth to the gas chambers in Nazi Germany.

One principle the Fabians fully grasped was that to fundamentally transform Society it would be necessary to move that Society towards a Welfare State.  In order to accomplish this they understood that they had to change the dialogue to focus on the weaknesses in human nature in order to gain sympathy and popularity for this cause.  If they could manipulate societies, preying upon poor to use them to advance their causes, while at the same time preying upon the human nature by making them feel guilty and responsible for the condition of the poor they could accomplish the second phase of their goals.

The second phase is to replace Free Market Capitalism with State Capitalism.  They believed that State should control aspects of business such as electric power production, transportation, precious metals and of course, credit. The remaining balance of economic systems would be left to the private sector however; it, in their thinking, must be highly regulated by the State and operated according to the wishes of the State.

There is nothing tolerant about the Fabian Socialist, they are and were statists.  The long term goal was to delude the populace into believe that Democracy and Socialism were compatible while pushing towards a Socialistic Dictatorship through a legalistic view of morality where the individual is simply a part of a greater collective.  No individual has any worth except the worth that individual provides to the collective.  If the collective does not benefit from the individual than that individual has absolutely no worth.

It is obvious that Adolph Hitler yields what happens when this model is put in to practical purpose.  The only difference between the Fabian Society and Hitler was that they believed he moved to fast for society to accept their goals.

The philosophy was embraced by intellectual elitists in America.  Knowing that Socialist meant Communist in the average American mind and Communism was a known enemy of American Values, they could not identify themselves as being openly Socialist so they called themselves something different.  They used the word Progressive.

It was essential that, in order to establish global dominance through a world dictatorship, the principle of American Exceptionalism must fail.  In less than 100 years America had gone from being an upstart new Government to the leader of the principles of freedom and individual liberties and that this had given birth to an entrepreneurial spirit that had made the American dollar the standard of measurement for the value of world currency.

To the pure Socialist, this is unthinkable and unacceptable. This does not exemplify their collective will.  The free-market ideology must be forced to collapse.  If society was to be purged from the undesirables, a system had to come into place that would replace the free market individualism to remove competition from the largest corporation while at the same time regulating those large corporations to comply with a word governance ideology.  They could not have competition; they must regulate to create the level playing field.

In order to accomplish this the conversion of America from the viewpoint of free market Capitalism to State Capitalism, something had to be done to collapse American economy from a market that could function prosperously without Government interference into a country that would become dependent upon the government in order to maintain its power that would be equally beneficial to both the Corporate power structure and the Government.

At the same time, the Government needed to replace the spirit of entrepreneurialism of the individual with a Welfare State of dependency.  This would call for a dramatic shift of the paradigm within the realm of the intellectually elite in this country.  In the most daring strategy of the Fabian Progressive movement, the spirit of Charity through moral conviction of the individual had to be replaced with the mandated theft of monies to create a dependent society in what Hayak referred to as the Road to Serfdom.

The wolf needed to identify the flock that it was going to feed upon in order to accomplish that aim and this task fell upon Margaret Sanger.

Margaret Sanger, the mother/founder of Planned Parenthood who has successfully deceived the masses into embracing them as holding compassion for the poor, made her intentions clear but few then and now listened to her intent.  Modern Progressives seek to hide what Sanger said in public because in this politically correct world, the real heart and spirit of her words betray the aims and goals of the image Planned Parenthood had fabricated for themselves.   Consider these three quotes from Sanger.

“Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying … demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism … [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant … We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.”

“Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems”

“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

To implement this Eugenic Control of Society, the wolf recognized the sheep it needed to devour.  Again, quoting from Margaret Sanger:

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Sanger’s ideology was radical for its time and the fact that so many of her supporters choose to ignore these statements from her demonstrates that her direct attempts at the Eugenic destruction of the black race and those that were identified as the social morons and dredges of society by the intellectually elite was never realized.  That is not to say it was not tried.  Through Sanger’s progressive ideology several states adopted a forced sterilization program that resulted in in the sterilization of an estimated 60,000 Americans.

The concept of the turtle moving slowly replaced Sanger’s radical Hitleresque destruction of classes that was deemed non-productive towards meeting the Fabian ends.

In order to replace entrepreneurialism the first step had to be to find a way to remove the competition of the free market system by replacing it with a governmentally controlled economic standard.  Enter the Federal Reserve.

While the excuse of a depression was its impetus, the goal of its establishment is evidenced in its results.  The Federal Reserve could now control and regulate Wall Street through economic manipulations in implementation of interest rates, securities and bonds.   The Authority of the Federal Reserve, while supposedly separate from the powers of Congress, falls under an appointed office through the Presidency effectively now giving the President some control over market fluctuations and pricing.

A new way of manipulating the market had to be developed and this fell to a man named John Maynard Keynes

Keynes stated “Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become ‘profiteers,’ who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.”

This new philosophy of economics is now referred to as Keynesian and is the only method of economics that the liberal progressives embrace in spite of its continual and historic evidence of complete failures.

The economic manipulations of the Federal Reserve were not enough though.  The President’s powers had to be extended to other institutions and this was realized through FDR’s New Deal.  The New Deal was the brainchild of a man named Stuart Chase. Stuart Chase was a member of the Fabian Society at Harvard University.

He laid out the basis of the New Deal.  The New Deal would empower the President through newly created agencies run by appointed positions to manipulate the government’s regulations of the business world effectively choosing which companies would fail and which would succeed through fees, duties and regulations.

The New Deal was only Stuarts short term goals.  The long term goals were established in 1942 through a book he wrote entitled “The Road We Are Traveling”.  In it he laid out the Fabian/Progressive plan for the future of America

1. A strong, centralized government.
2. An executive arm growing at the expense of the legislative and judicial arms.
3. The control of banking, credit and security exchanges by the government.
4. The underwriting of employment by the government, either through armaments or public works.
5. The underwriting of social security by the government – old-age pensions, mothers’ pensions, unemployment insurance, and the like.
6. The underwriting of food, housing, and medical care, by the government.
7. The use of deficit spending to finance these underwritings.
8. The abandonment of gold in favor of managed currencies.
9. The control of foreign trade by the government.
10. The control of natural resources.
11. The control of energy sources.
12. The control of transportation.
13. The control of agricultural production.
14. The control of labor organizations.
15. The enlistment of young men and women in youth corps devoted to health, discipline, community service and ideologies consistent with those of the authorities.
16. Heavy taxation, with special emphasis on the estates and incomes of the rich.
17. Control of industry without ownership.
18. State control of communications and propaganda.

Perhaps the most egregious part of this movement has been the way in which the government has become the Fabian Society in its deluding the poor into believing they are the Savior of the poor while the plan all along has been the fattening of the sheep to prepare society to accept their annihilation so openly embraced by the likes of Shaw, Sanger and others in the foundation of the Progressive movement.

We are on the precipice.  Have you ever believed that the government needs to step in and do something about the reckless morality of many in our society who bear more children than they can support?  Isn’t this exactly one of the excuses used by Progressives embracing Pro-Choice position to justify the wholesale slaughter of the most innocent among us?

As we watch the downward spiraling of our economy, would we justify purging those who contribute less or nothing by our estimation in order to preserve our own existence?

This has been the trail of the Fabian turtle in its slow path towards The Doctrine of Inevability of Gradulaism. The journey of this turtle does not end with the surrender of moral values and replacing them with Fabian intellectualism in America.  The turtles journey ends when this is the rule for the world and this can only be accomplished by the fundamental transformation of America.

The most dangerous things to human sanctity is that Progressives believe this is compassion.  Their understanding about compassion is vastly different from our own but to help us all understand how they define compassion consider this quote in 2010 for progressive author and commentator Virginia Ironside

“If a baby’s going to be born severely disabled or totally unwanted, surely an abortion is the act of a loving mother. If I were the mother of a suffering child – I mean a deeply suffering child – I would be the first to want to put a pillow over its face…My feeling of horror at suffering is much greater than getting rid of a couple of cells. If it was a child I really loved, who was in agony, I think any good mother would.”

That, my friends is Progressive compassion.  “My Feeling of horror at suffering is much greater than getting rid of a couple of cells.”

 

 

I often get asked the question “Why is history so important?”. There are a lot of reasons but most of them are abstract. Today I’m going to share a little bit of history and why it is essential in understanding why many of us are here right now..

I am a member of the Lebanon 9-12 Project in Pennsylvania and we recently created a video of founder’s quotes to help promote what we believe. You can find that video at http://www.lebanon912.org. In our quotes video for the Lebanon 9-12 Project, one of the images and quotes is from James Otis. Otis is one of our forgotten founders. If you are a history fanatic concerning the American Revolution then you probably have watched most of the History Channel documentaries on the Revolution like I have and I challenge any of you to find James Otis anywhere in them.

Most historians point to Taxation without Representation as one of the principle motivations for the American Revolutionary war. This is, of course, ignoring that there are 27 grievances against the King in the Declaration of Independence. Taxation without Representation is mentioned once and its number 17 of those 27 grievances. It states “For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent“. It wasn’t just about taxes, it was being taxed without representative legislation through their local governance in each of the independent colonies. Completely ignored by most historians who want to turn every war and political movement into an argument about economics is that 11 of the grievances are about an abuse of power concerning individual rights that have nothing to do with taxation, along with 7 grievances concerning the abuse of military powers to exert control over the personal liberties of the people living in the Colonies.

Turn back the clock to 1761. The Treaty of Paris has not yet been signed bringing an official end to the French and Indian Wars. In Massachusetts, a case is about to go before the State Courts. That case concerns a group of 63 Boston merchants represented by Boston attorney James Otis, Jr.  A counter-suit is filed by a British customs agent by the name of Paxton, and this case would then be identified as “Paxton’s case.”  The principle legal point of the case was centered around the Writs of Assistance Act passed by Parliament. Otis argued the writs of assistance case in February 1761 and again on November 16, 1761.

The Writs of Assistance were papers that allowed search and seizure of personal property by order of Parliament and the King and in this particular moment in time, a Writs of Assistance was permanent. That meant that a local sheriff, once they secured a writ against an individual, could go into a home or business to search personal property and then return at any time in the future without applying for another warrant. Once an individual had a Writ attached to them it was permanent. It is also important to remember that Otis was not just representing people, but merchants so his argument dealt with business as well.

Otis relied primarily on the argument of a higher moral law rather than a reliance on the uncertainty of an unwritten British Constitution which could be reinvented since it was not written down. In arguing for Higher Law he alleges a violation of Natural Law. Otis reasoned that writs of assistance were intrinsically void since they violated the basic naturalRight of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of property.

He cited Sir Edward Coke, whose Institutes placed The Magna Carta into a prohibition of general search warrants, and he read into Coke a further requirement that all search warrants be specific.

Persuaded by Otis’s eloquence, the court delayed its decision, but still found that the writs used in England were general in application. In short, Otis loses the case but the arguments he made during the case began to spread across the colonies. The words he spoke during a 5 hour oration of the rights of man would influence Paine, Jefferson and Adams in the years leading up to the Declaration as well as inspire Madison in the framing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights but the influence does not end there.

It can be argued, as it was by John Adams, that the case made by Otis concerning the Writs of Assistance gave birth to the Spirit of Independence in America.

Thomas Paine’s Common sense, expanded on Mr. Otis’ arguments. Jefferson almostquotes him word for word when he writes that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights and that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. 30 years later, in 1791, James Otis’ legal arguments concerning a citizen’s right to privacy were utilized by James Madison in drafting the Fourth Amendment. The text of the fourth amendment reads:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
From that time until the Patriot Act, court decision after court decision has continually ruled that privacy is relation to the individual and not a place.

In Weeks vs. U.S in 1914, the court decided on the exclusionary rule, which states that no evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights by police is admissible at trial.

A case involving the use of new technology came to the court in Silverthorne Lumber Co. vs. US in 1920. The police seized documents from the company and took photographs and copies of the documents. They then returned the evidence to the Silverthorne Company and used the photos and copies in the trial. The photos were ruled in violation of Silverthorne’s fourth Amendment rights even though the photos would have proved the company guilty.

Justice Holmes said at the time : The essence of a provision forbidding the acquisition of evidence in a certain way is that not merely evidence so acquired shall not be used before the court, but that it shall not be used at all. – Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes

In Mapp vs. Ohio in 1961, Mapp’s house had been entered on the basis of a faulty warrant, and evidence seized had then been used in trial. The Supreme Court ruling, handed down by Justice Tom Clark, permanently extended the exclusionary rule to the states because the police involved were all of the state level. By judging in favor of Mapp, it required the states to follow the Fourth Amendment. In his judgment Justice Tom Clark explained the state refusal of the exclusionary rule as “The ignoble shortcut to conviction left open to the state tends to destroy the entire system of constitutional restraints on which the liberties of the people rest.” He also explained why the rule must apply even in a case in which the evidence leaves no doubt of conviction. “The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free… [for] nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.”

In Katz vs. US in 1967. Federal agents had used a wiretap to conduct surveillance of Katz while he was making calls from a public phone booth. The evidence was suppressed by the Supreme Court because of the interpretation of privacy. Privacy, as was judged, depends on the person, not the place. This created the reasonable privacy test, where as suppression of evidence depends on if the defendant is to expect a reasonable amount of privacy in the area from which the evidence is gathered. With regard to electronic surveillance, the court stated “searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by a magistrate or judge, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” This statement, along with the verdict, made it illegal to conduct any electronic surveillance without a warrant.

The Patriot Act has now dismissed all of these previous ruling and seems to have returned us to a Pre-American Revolutionary time and placed us back into the courtroom with Mr. James Otis. For the King and Parliament, the justification for the Writs of Assistance revolved around smuggling and was an attempt to break the pirate trade prevalent on the high seas. They called piracy Acts of Terror on the High Seas. They saw these acts of Piracy as Acts of War since violence was often used while smuggling. Many people agreed because they felt the law made them feel safe when making a long sea voyage or when importing or exporting goods in the colonies.

The technology may have changed but the justification for these unconstitutional search and seizures afforded by the Patriot Act are the same. Sec. 206 of the Patriot Act allowed law enforcement agencies for the first time to require just a single warrant that would cover the wiretapping of a home phone, a cell phone, and a computer. While the intent of such broad rewriting of the existing laws regarding wiretapping surveillance was to make it easier to investigate suspected terrorists, the most infamous example related to the expansion of surveillance laws resulted in an artist named Steve Kurtz being brought in for questioning on a very shaky foundation of suspicion that that bioterrorist weapons could be created from the ingredients he used in his art supplies.

In section 213 of the Patriot Act, law enforcement officials were given the power to conduct a search of the home of any America or their place of business with only the necessity of a suspicion of terrorist activity; these searches are allowed to be conducted without any notification whatever that an investigation has targeted them. The “sneak and peak” search, as it is called, is designed to catch suspected terrorists off guard, but since the warrants are mandated under a definition of domestic terrorism that is vague to the point of lacking any tangible meaning, in reality they could be used for any investigation at all.

This sneak and peak mentality opened the door to the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) searches at our airports. Full body scans or full body searches, that’s the choice. The argument that you have retained your freedom because if you don’t want the search you don’t have to fly is wrong. As Ben Franklin said, “He that would give up essential liberty for safety deserves neither!”

Further abuses have allowed the Pennsylvania Homeland Security Division to place organizations like the Constitutional Organization of Liberty, UnitePA and other 9-12/Tea Party groups on Terrorist alert lists. They didn’t even bother to keep their investigation internal. In fact, they hired an outside group to do it who received funding from private organizations like Hershey Foods and Rite-Aide and the information gathered about the security risks of people like us was shared with those corporations. Governor Ed Rendell went so far as to say he wasn’t even aware of the compass of the groups investigations. In other words, the government wasn’t even controlling this private firm which was granted authority under the Patriot Act. While the contract with this group has been ended, not as a result of it’s actions, but as a result of the simple fact the contract was not renewed, no charges of any violation of Fourth Amendment rights are being made against this private information gathering firm.

By understanding that it was loss of personal liberties that gave birth to the American Revolution and that it was not simply born out of a simple concern that their taxes were too darn high we have a better understanding of what brought America to Lexington and Concord; by understanding that the Declaration was born under a rejection of the principles established through a usurpation of powers that violated the laws of Nature and of Natures God concerning personal liberties; by understanding these things we understand that the direction this country is moving towards is not as “progressive” as they would have us believe. It is, in fact, “regressive” in that it completely abandons the very arguments made by our founders that created a new form of government in this world. Their desire is to return to the old forms of government where the rights of the people were always secondary for the advancement of the ruling elite and their oligarchy form of government. It is in its very essence, a regression to a form of tyranny.

John Adams had this to say about James Otis. “I have been young and now I am old, and I solemnly say I have never known a man whose love of country was more ardent or sincere, never one who suffered so much, never one whose service for any 10 years of his life were so important and essential to the cause of his country as those of Mr. Otis from 1760 to 1770.”

Concerning the Paxton Case of 1761, Adams said this about the arguments presented by James Otis “Then and there, the child Independence was born.”

We are not here simply because our taxes are too high. We are here for the cause of Liberty. We are here to stand up against these acts of tyranny that suppress the individuals rights and freedoms granted to us by the hand of Providence in stating that all men everywhere are created equal. If we give up these liberties for safety sake, we foolishly give up our right to be free. If we care only about the capture of those we feel are a somehow a threat to us, what happens when we are identified as a domestic terrorist group who chooses to use our first amendment rights to assemble and then to further extend the exercise of free speech to simply complain about the policies of our government?

Are we not then threatening our government and could these violations of our Fourth Amendment Rights not be used against us as just allegations of domestic terrorism? May it never be!!!!

History is important. It helps us to understand that the issues that face us today are many of the same issues that faced the colonists who had to make a choice between safety under the tyranny of the Oligarchy of the King and Parliament or to embrace the unalienable rights of all mankind.