Fabianism

[Iwannaplato]

Is it simply that you want wealthy people who have "earned" their wealth while making the world a better place for all to be in power?

Think carefully, Gary: what has wealth got to do with the right to rule? Are people with more money better people than others? Are people with less money better? And what would make you think that, say, an inventor or entrepreneur would be a good ruler as well?

I wish you would think carefully. Wealth has nothing to do with the right to rule. It has everything with the ability to rule. A businessman who owns a factory calls the shots and holds absolute power over his employees for as long as they work for him. Have you ever worked in a large business before? You don't seem in touch with reality if you have ask me how wealth and power relate.

Yes, in current capitalism the system clearly says that the rich are more fit to rule. That is what happens. And that's just looking at the surface. The amount of ways that banking and finance and other corporations control who can run and what they can do when in office and what they are beholden to also is the system affirming that those with great wealth have more right to rule than people with less money. They are also not equal under the law. This is systematic, not individual exceptions.

Now one could argue that current capitalism is not what real capitalism would be like. Great. But there's a vast silence from certain quarters about current capitalism. In fact certain quarters can only manage to complain about people resentment towards the rich, without managing to notice how the system is more than resentment towards the middle-class to lower levels of income. It has separated them from real participation, because the system implicitly ensures the rule of great wealth. So, we have an oligarchy. But still for voices in some quarters the only unfairness they seem to notice is resentment of the wealthy.

They are apologists, ironically, for forces and entities and people who also think they - these would be defenders of capitalism - are utterly meaningless sub-people, also.

[Iwannaplato]

If Jesus was "fairly conservative" then there would have been no reason for them to be astonished at what he said.

Actually, there would. He was a carpenter, by trade. He was not supposed to be an educated man. His family was well-known, and undistinguished. And yet he knew far more about the Word of God than the Pharisees, who'd spent their whole lives studying it. And it was that that amazed them. (Matt. 13:54-56)

Way to dis Jesus.

And way for IC to not get his citations right: Matthew 13:54-56 is about his neighbors and not the Pharisees. John 7:15 goes into the Pharisees reactions to J, for example. And of course the Pharisees were shocked that he was learned without having gone through channels, the right education. Even in his mere learnedness Jesus broke with tradition.

[phyllo]

That would be fairly conservative, I think you'd have to agree.

If Jesus was "fairly conservative" then there would have been no reason for them to be astonished at what he said.

He went against local authorities of all kinds spiritual and manifest. He reinterpreted and extended the OT. He reframed law from obedience-centered → human-wellbeing-centered and healed on the Sabbath, saying it was for man, not man for the Sabbath. He challenged social authority through is social connections and behavior with them. He made the enormous shift from behavior centered morals to attitudinal, emotional internal morality.

The conservatives of his day hated him precisely for upsetting traditional order.

Jesus said "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

[phyllo]

Actually, there would. He was a carpenter, by trade. He was not supposed to be an educated man. His family was well-known, and undistinguished. And yet he knew far more about the Word of God than the Pharisees, who'd spent their whole lives studying it. And it was that that amazed them. (Matt. 13:54-56)

Way to dis Jesus.

Yeah, they didn't get it, either.

"Same stuff that the rabbis have been saying but a carpenter is saying it. Amazing. Wow."

[phyllo]

Opinions on Jesus from Jewish texts:

Jesus is mentioned in Maimonides' Epistle to Yemen, written about 1172 to Rabbi Jacob ben Netan'el al-Fayyumi, head of the Yemenite community:

Ever since the time of Revelation, every despot or slave that has attained to power, be he violent or ignoble, has made it his first aim and his final purpose to destroy our law, and to vitiate our religion, by means of the sword, by violence, or by brute force, such as Amalek, Sisera, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Titus, Hadrian, may their bones be ground to dust, and others like them. This is one of the two classes which attempt to foil the Divine will.

The second class consists of the most intelligent and educated among the nations, such as the Syrians, Persians, and Greeks. These also endeavor to demolish our law and to vitiate it by means of arguments which they invent, and by means of controversies which they institute....

After that there arose a new sect which combined the two methods, namely, conquest and controversy, into one, because it believed that this procedure would be more effective in wiping out every trace of the Jewish nation and religion. It, therefore, resolved to lay claim to prophecy and to found a new faith, contrary to our Divine religion, and to contend that it was equally God-given. Thereby it hoped to raise doubts and to create confusion, since one is opposed to the other and both supposedly emanate from a Divine source, which would lead to the destruction of both religions. For such is the remarkable plan contrived by a man who is envious and querulous. He will strive to kill his enemy and to save his own life, but when he finds it impossible to attain his objective, he will devise a scheme whereby they both will be slain.

The first one to have adopted this plan was Jesus the Nazarene, may his bones be ground to dust. He was a Jew because his mother was a Jewess although his father was a Gentile. For in accordance with the principles of our law, a child born of a Jewess and a Gentile, or of a Jewess and a slave, is legitimate. (Yebamot 45a). Jesus is only figuratively termed an illegitimate child. He impelled people to believe that he was a prophet sent by God to clarify perplexities in the Torah, and that he was the Messiah that was predicted by each and every seer. He interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment, to the abolition of all its commandments and to the violation of its prohibitions. The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_vi ... Maimonides

Scholars have identified passages that mention Jesus in the context of his execution:

Babylonian Sanhedrin 43a–b – "on the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus the Nazarene" (Editions or MSs: Herzog 1, Karlsruhe 2)
Babylonian Sanhedrin 43a–b – "Jesus the Nazarene is going forth to be stoned" (Editions or MSs: Herzog 1, Firenze II.1.8–9, Karlsruhe 2)
Babylonian Sanhedrin 43a–b – "Do you suppose Jesus the Nazarene was one for whom a defense could be made?" (Editions or MSs: Herzog 1, Firenze II.1.8–9, Karlsruhe 2)
Babylonian Sanhedrin 43a–b – "With Jesus the Nazarene it was different" (Editions or MSs: Herzog 1, Firenze II.1.8–9, Karlsruhe 2)[75][99]

The full passage is:

(The Mishna asserts) a crier goes out before (a man condemned to execution). Before him (i.e. when he is being led to execution), yes; but from the outset (i.e. before his conviction), no. But isn't it taught that on Passover Eve, they hanged Yeshu (after he was killed by stoning)? And a crier went out before him (for) forty days, (proclaiming): "Yeshu is to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited (idolatry), and lead the Jewish people astray. Anyone who knows (a reason to) acquit him should come (forward) and reveal it on his behalf!" And they did not find (a reason) to acquit him, and they hanged him on Passover Eve.

Ulla said, "And (how can) you understand? (Was) Yeshu worthy of a search to acquit him? He was an inciter, and the Merciful One states, ‘Neither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him.’ But, Yeshu was different, as he was close with the government."

— Sanhedrin 43a

In the Florence manuscript of the Talmud (1177 CE) an addition is made to Sanhedrin 43a saying that Yeshu was hanged on the eve of the Sabbath.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_ ... #Execution

[Iwannaplato]

J was not viewed as conservative, but as a destroyer of tradition. Of course, from a Christian perspective he was actually going back to the real foundation of God's messages. But this leaves conservatives in a trickier position. The Bible itself is founded on someone who upset traditions, even the church elders, so to speak, and the way the religion had been viewed for a long time. So, conserving can be a serious problem and people questioning and upsetting things that have been traditions may well be on to something. Doesn't mean change is right. But it makes the category conservative complex, perhaps problematic. And more analysis is needed. Further it is a calling into question every earthly expert and authority, since Jesus obviously was willing to question these to the bone.

Who gets to speak for God?

[Walker]

Attempting to correct the corruption of an original intent, even when that corruption has become woven into the fabric of a culture and crippled the original intent, is a conservative view.

This applies to the condition of humanity back in the olden days, and Jesus addressed the condition in his role of correcting the cultural corruption of his time, as best he could, using the original intent of God as the measure of what had been corrupted.

This conservative correction of corruption also applies to modern politics, with the US Constitution as the measure of corruption.

When the corruption runs so deep that a third of tax revenues are lost to corruption such as fraud, slippery-slope legislation, and flat out ignoring the constitution (as with the budgeting process), radical measures are required for correction, e.g., denying demands to replace immigration case review with individual judicial reviews that will take decades if not longer to process for millions of cases, which was in part the conscious intent of flooding the border and overloading the system by ignoring immigration laws, big time.

[Walker]

Question: The OP video focuses on eugenics. The third-world invasion into Europe and the USA will result in racial homogenization. Are the Fabian folks anti-immigration?

[Immanuel Can]

Question: The OP video focuses on eugenics. The third-world invasion into Europe and the USA will result in racial homogenization. Are the Fabian folks anti-immigration?

https://fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploa ... 16-WEB.pdf

[Iwannaplato]

Attempting to correct the corruption of an original intent, even when that corruption has become woven into the fabric of a culture and crippled the original intent, is a conservative view.

This applies to the condition of humanity back in the olden days, and Jesus addressed the condition in his role of correcting the cultural corruption of his time, as best he could, using the original intent of God as the measure of what had been corrupted.

As I said above:

Of course, from a Christian perspective he was actually going back to the real foundation of God's messages.

The issue with the Bible is what is the true tradition, which is not an easy thing to see with the OT/NT shifts.

My point was that once we recognize that what seems to be breaking tradition may not be, then things have to be evaluated on their merits. There is no categorical dismissal. When IC prior life soul was in that part of the world, was he 'conservative' or conservative.

[Walker]

Question: The OP video focuses on eugenics. The third-world invasion into Europe and the USA will result in racial homogenization. Are the Fabian folks anti-immigration?

https://fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploa ... 16-WEB.pdf

I gave it a quick read. The pamphlet encourages migration, but says there should be changes. The emphasis is on welcoming and finding something for migrants to do via a democratic process, which means citizenship and giving newcomers a voice in modifying the culture for their needs, and offering paths of integration via language lessons, perhaps job training, whatever it takes for a busy and productive society to integrate in peace and harmony. Basically, overhauling the culture with migrant convenience and accommodation is the focus. Chapter 6 is titled, Immediate Actions for a New Government, and the buildup up to that is about the advantages of a new government for peace, harmony, and prosperity … although I’m not sure if those exact words are used. Nothing about eugenics, as was mentioned in the OP video, so apparently that is not a consideration of the Fabian society in relation to massive immigration from foreign cultures and ways of thinking that are at odds with the host country. No doubt I missed much in the link but rather than study it, I gave it the due diligence of about ten minutes, plus another fifteen or so to file a report in return for your effort in providing the link, and perhaps for you to highlight what’s really happening based on what I didn’t say, or misunderstood from breezing through the boiler plate.

[Immanuel Can]

Question: The OP video focuses on eugenics. The third-world invasion into Europe and the USA will result in racial homogenization. Are the Fabian folks anti-immigration?

https://fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploa ... 16-WEB.pdf

I gave it a quick read. The pamphlet encourages migration, but says there should be changes. The emphasis is on welcoming and finding something for migrants to do via a democratic process, which means citizenship and giving newcomers a voice in modifying the culture for their needs, and offering paths of integration via language lessons, perhaps job training, whatever it takes for a busy and productive society to integrate in peace and harmony. Basically, overhauling the culture with migrant convenience and accommodation is the focus. Chapter 6 is titled, Immediate Actions for a New Government, and the buildup up to that is about the advantages of a new government for peace, harmony, and prosperity … although I’m not sure if those exact words are used. Nothing about eugenics, as was mentioned in the OP video, so apparently that is not a consideration of the Fabian society in relation to massive immigration from foreign cultures and ways of thinking that are at odds with the host country. No doubt I missed much in the link but rather than study it, I gave it the due diligence of about ten minutes, plus another fifteen or so to file a report in return for your effort in providing the link, and perhaps for you to highlight what’s really happening based on what I didn’t say, or misunderstood from breezing through the boiler plate.

Well, I'd say the Fabians are quite clear on their overarching goal:it's the achieving of power for the Fabian elite, through the imposition of Socialism at the lower level and the preserving of themselves as the elite. They're not shy about saying that their whole purpose is to reshape the world, and that they believe they are just the people capable of doing it right.

So we should expect their immigration policy to be directed to that goal, no matter what other reasons they give for it. Like everything else they do, they'll be pro-migration when it suits them, and demand limits when it does not. Migrants that unsetttle the existing order, increase the demand for centralized governance, and are directable to Fabian goals, they want; migrants that, say, come from places that are educated and advanced, where immigration would lead to larger bodies of informed people aware of their own power, options and democratic rights, they are not going to want at all...unless the same are prepared to become Fabian Socialists, as well, of course.

Just how forthcoming is their document about their real purposes? I can't say. All I can say is that this is what they provide as their self-declared position.

But what makes a Fabian a better kind of person to hold power than any other? As near as I can see, the answer they have is only "my own self-image." They see themselves as that elite that should reshape the world, so they have declared themselves to be that. I don't think we have any reason to believe it at all. I suspect their lack of humility and lack of critical self-awareness should make us very concerned about them, particularly in the UK.

What have they actually achieved? Do we like what they have done, or are doing? And is the world they plan for us one in which we will end up better off than we are now, or is it more likely that the "wolves" will turn and start to "feed" on the "sheep," as has happened in every single historical case in which Socialism gained control? That's certainly what they promise us -- yet one more case in which the hubris of Socialism is leveraged to subdue and devour the resources and lives of the general population.

[Walker]

The logo is the wolf in sheep's clothing.

The pamphlet is the sheep.

[MikeNovack]

Well, I'd say the Fabians are quite clear on their overarching goal:it's the achieving of power for the Fabian elite, through the imposition of Socialism at the lower level and the preserving of themselves as the elite. They're not shy about saying that their whole purpose is to reshape the world, and that they believe they are just the people capable of doing it right.

Feel free to believe that if you wish. Not unreasonable if you believe humans by their very nature are sinful/evil.

But of course Fabians do not share that belief. Try taking them seriously at their word. They do not expect to remain alone as "the people capable pof doing it right" once progress has been made toward this reshaped world. TIME. The Fabians do not believe can be done quickly, that time is required. For example, the vote (remember, in the UK vots for (all) MEN not till 1918). They would not imagine "oh good, now they have the vote, will be able to govern themselves, all done", They would think going to take substantial TIME to learn that skill, but since only can be learned by doing, getting the vote has to come before ready to use it for proper/wise self governance.

I am NOT a "fabian", but I do understand their thinking << just like I am not a revolutionary socialist, but understand theirs >> I perhaps agree with the "fabians" about "some changes will require substantial time". It is a sad reality that pretty much all of our "politics" is unable to deal effectively with problems requiring a long time to solve. It is hard enough for a five year plan, but what if the problem needs a 50 year plan or a 500 year plan.

[Walker]

It is hard enough for a five year plan, but what if the problem needs a 50 year plan or a 500 year plan.

The US Constitution is such a plan. It even allows for amendments revealed as necessary by time. However, as with the constitutionally illegal lack of a budgetary process, the US government doesn’t even follow the amendment process anymore. The constitutional way is too much trouble, too uncertain of a desired result, and it exposes the incumbent in Congress to alienation by special interests.

It’s interesting that in the US, The Supremes will likely punt the anchor baby issue* to the legislature, when in fact the anchor baby issue was created by opinions of past Supremes rather than the constitution, and the anchor baby precedent is now set in stone and coasting along under the authority of case law rather than constitutional intent, intent as gauged by The Declaration of Independence. Thus, the need for a government clean-up back to original intent. If the US fails it won’t be because of the constitution or capitalism but by the corruption of each. That’s a claim that could also be made by socialism, if socialism had ever worked.


From the information in the first video, The Fabians go so far back in history that they in fact just might be the original intent for England in the modern era since England lost the pole position.


*Without getting into the weeds, the anchor baby policy is insane.