Background of George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)

[Belle]

Posted by Flash (here)

however this is a point i have made on several threads regarding language. More and more of our media use language which is metanymical rather than using exact words and inferances. Thus you cannot break it down accurately and attack it. This makes both discourse and dissent almost impossible

yes and Chomsky, the linguist and leftist, knows quite a lot about this, here a co forum post

Originally Posted by MariaDine
https://youtube.com/watch?v=WveI_...eature=related

https://youtube.com/watch?v=kawGakdNoT0

This is an excerpt from the Chomsky-Foucault debate .

Lately, Chomsky has argued that the mass media in the United States largely serve as a propaganda arm and «bought priesthood« of the U.S. government and U.S. corporations, with the three parties intertwined through common interests.
In a famous reference to Walter Lippmann, Chomsky along with his coauthor Edward S. Herman has written that the American media manufactures consent among the public.
Chomsky has condemned the 2010 supreme court ruling revoking the limits on campaign finance, calling it "corporate takeover of democracy."

Taking into account that almost all media are now owned by 7 individuals in US,(see Carmody's post) it makes it extremely easy to reduce the grammar to its minimum and only to its emotional components. Activating the masses is therefore very easy (see Bernays).

Bernays and Lippmann sat together on the U.S. Committee on Public Information during World War I and Bernays quotes Lippmann extensively in his seminal work Propaganda.

According to Edward Louis Bernays:

"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits."

He called this scientific technique of opinion-molding the 'engineering of consent'.

[Flash]

Posted by Belle;220335

Bernays and Lippmann sat together on the U.S. Committee on Public Information during World War I and Bernays quotes Lippmann extensively in his seminal work Propaganda.

According to Edward Louis Bernays:

[B
"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits."[/B]

He called this scientific technique of opinion-molding the 'engineering of consent'.

I would definitly argue that it is much easier than what Bernays said about the control of masses. The engineering of consent is that, engineering of consent, by omitting information, generalising other information, distorting more information, creating new illusions, putting the information they want to provide in as many sensory perception as possible, creating distraction and counting on the lesser education now provided as well as the language deficiencies implemented and you have much better control than ever dreamed of before. Add to this herd behaviors, that have been studied since Bernays, and this is not that difficult. US went to war in Iraq with these ways of behaving!

Lets put it that way: if Canada elected Harper, it is easy to control masses!! (personal opinion of course)

The problem here is that I can't follow anylonger what this has to do with the thread topic.

[Belle]

I was late to the party and responded to your post because I find Bernays interesting. Propaganda has come a long way since his time...I agree.

My thinking goes something like propaganda can be a two-edged sword to tptb...it can herd people in a certain direction without them being consciously aware of it, but it can also be used to disseminate information not normally available to the average person through a story...such as "1984" or "Animal Farm".

[jjl]

His son Richard Blair worked for many years as an agricultural agent for the British government.

[Carmody]

Posted by Belle (here)

Posted by Flash (here)

however this is a point i have made on several threads regarding language. More and more of our media use language which is metanymical rather than using exact words and inferances. Thus you cannot break it down accurately and attack it. This makes both discourse and dissent almost impossible

yes and Chomsky, the linguist and leftist, knows quite a lot about this, here a co forum post

Originally Posted by MariaDine
https://youtube.com/watch?v=WveI_...eature=related

https://youtube.com/watch?v=kawGakdNoT0

This is an excerpt from the Chomsky-Foucault debate .

Lately, Chomsky has argued that the mass media in the United States largely serve as a propaganda arm and «bought priesthood« of the U.S. government and U.S. corporations, with the three parties intertwined through common interests.
In a famous reference to Walter Lippmann, Chomsky along with his coauthor Edward S. Herman has written that the American media manufactures consent among the public.
Chomsky has condemned the 2010 supreme court ruling revoking the limits on campaign finance, calling it "corporate takeover of democracy."

Taking into account that almost all media are now owned by 7 individuals in US,(see Carmody's post) it makes it extremely easy to reduce the grammar to its minimum and only to its emotional components. Activating the masses is therefore very easy (see Bernays).

Bernays and Lippmann sat together on the U.S. Committee on Public Information during World War I and Bernays quotes Lippmann extensively in his seminal work Propaganda.

According to Edward Louis Bernays:

"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits."

He called this scientific technique of opinion-molding the 'engineering of consent'.

The group mind always works as an undercurrent of emotional contact. It is, at minimum, three layers of communication down (three layers more primitive) from the internal mental mind and it's internal musings.

Which is why it is so easy to use posturing, imagery, and insincere words ---to sway or move them.

This is why...we ALL individually know, in some way or another how to get to where we want to go.

However, translating that to a group consensus, is near impossible.

When groupthink finally raises itself another notch, so a more rarefied communication is possible than the known parameters of crowd psychology...THEN..humankind will change.

This is also why someone who is not of great or astute mental capacity but IS sociopathic and amoral/unethical/inhumane--- this is how they can manipulate a large group of conscientious and thinking individuals.

It is not our ignorance or any other person's given ignorance --- it never was, and never will be.

It is our incapacity to communicate in a groupthink at a high enough level.

~THAT~ is our collective Achilles heel.

[TWINCANS]

Posted by Carmody (here)

Posted by charlesfrith (here)
I'm interested in Star Wars writing that had deeper knowledge of more than a movie if you have any links. Thanks.

George Lucas had a NDE (Near Death Experience) just before he wrote the basic components of the star wars saga. He was driving a car and was at an angled intersection shaped like this > "y"... and he pulled out of the intersection and was hit by a truck, IIRC. Or something moving pretty fast. Basically he left ....and came back. Then he wrote the Star wars basic form and shape. Everything evolved from that point of the NDE, is my recollection. Do research on his vehicular accident. You may not find very much on it, these days. It is not very well known, from my searches on it. I found it, as pieces of information go, nearly 15 years back.

I thought it was channelled from The Nine. NOTE: My bad. That was Star Trek by Gene Roddenberry. Thanks for the George Lucas info.

[Flash]

Posted by Carmody;220754The group mind always works as an undercurrent of emotional contact. It is, at minimum, three layers of communication down (three layers more primitive) from the internal mental mind and it's internal musings.

Which is why it is so easy to use posturing, imagery, and insincere words ---to sway or move them.

This is why...we ALL individually know, in some way or another how to get to where we want to go.

However, translating that to a group consensus, is near impossible.

When groupthink finally raises itself another notch, so a more rarefied communication is possible than the known parameters of crowd psychology...THEN..[I
humankind will change.
[/I]
This is also why someone who is not of great or astute mental capacity but IS sociopathic and amoral/unethical/inhumane--- this is how they can manipulate a large group of conscientious and thinking individuals.

It is not our ignorance or any other person's given ignorance --- it never was, and never will be.

It is our incapacity to communicate in a groupthink at a high enough level.

~THAT~ is our collective Achilles heel.

I had never seen the groupthink under this angle. It makes perfect sense. How do you think we could bring it a notch higher?

[TWINCANS]

I think that to paraphrase "The group mind always works as an undercurrent of fear emotion contact..."

So when the consciousness sits in the oversoul or higher lightbody, not identifying with the ego body and without fear driving the emotional body, then there's the possibility of a merge or partial merge of consciousness, leading to telepathy. The higher frequencies are group frequencies. The lower ones (Earth's 3D one is the lowest) are individuation frequencies. So the key is to drop fear, increase your frequency and also the amount of light in your aura.

[Carmody]

Posted by Flash (here)

Posted by Carmody;220754The group mind always works as an undercurrent of emotional contact. It is, at minimum, three layers of communication down (three layers more primitive) from the internal mental mind and it's internal musings.

Which is why it is so easy to use posturing, imagery, and insincere words ---to sway or move them.

This is why...we ALL individually know, in some way or another how to get to where we want to go.

However, translating that to a group consensus, is near impossible.

When groupthink finally raises itself another notch, so a more rarefied communication is possible than the known parameters of crowd psychology...THEN..[I
humankind will change.
[/I]
This is also why someone who is not of great or astute mental capacity but IS sociopathic and amoral/unethical/inhumane--- this is how they can manipulate a large group of conscientious and thinking individuals.

It is not our ignorance or any other person's given ignorance --- it never was, and never will be.

It is our incapacity to communicate in a groupthink at a high enough level.

~THAT~ is our collective Achilles heel.

I had never seen the groupthink under this angle. It makes perfect sense. How do you think we could bring it a notch higher?

first identify the problem.

(Then it gets tricky)
Second, get that into people - individually.

third remove emotional overtones.

A good friend of mine was a world class debater. One major point he always makes is that as soon as one gets emotional in their debate tactics, they've lost. The audience that one is attempting to reach, they disconnect. It's over. Once one brings their emotional heat into their subtext or carrier wave of their communications, then the communication ceases. After that, either they emotionally agree with you or they emotionally dismiss you.

If one is trying to control an already known and connected to quantity, then it's a case of using emotions to keep them in thrall. Thus...Glen Beck, and Bill O'Reiley.

First, you have to reach the people. It cannot be done via emotional casting, this fails as it even begins. Thus, to get people to face the new and the unknowns, no panic, no emotions, no rising emotions and no provocative speech or similar arrangement of words/speech.

Now, think of the overall tone of my past 2000 or so posts.

There is a method to my madness.

Bill's past involves working with people. Note the similarity of our posting styles, with regard to heat or emotion in them. This is done not because the emotion is absent in the person posting, but that the emotion in the subtext or overt emotion in the post ....is simply not effective. Never waste your energy 'preaching to the pew', or the 'already converted'.

An emotional reaction in the target in any difficult intellectually based communication endeavor is pretty well a 100% guarantee that you've lost the target and they've lost the data.

Note that the 'democrats' (liberals) attempt to reach people with calm reason, for the most part.

Note the 'republican' (conservative) line of going after people with emotion. To KEEP their group in thrall.

This is the exact kind of thing that Orwell, Huxley, and Bernays were acutely aware of. Any good politician is, as well. So are the corporations that run things from the shadows. Same deal.

The public is kept in emotional thrall or confusion in other cases/ways... so that thought never begins.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now I know why this line was handed to me by my muse, about 3 hours back. it is very important to this subject. it is an old issue of the groupthink mentality, the herd mentality. This is my post from the 'Christ has returned' thread. It is the last line, here:

Since this has become a rambling thread, I'd like to say that I bought 'the power of now' (Eckhart Tolle) at a junk store about an hour ago. Driving home, I opened it for a second, as I waiting at a stop light. Most, if not all, that Tolle writes, I already know. But refreshers and different viewpoints can help. They always do. I used a thing sometimes called 'bibliomancy' which is thinking a clear thought and then flipping pages of a book...then you stop..and begin reading. This is surprisingly good, most times.

This I did -with his book. Sort of. I was not attempting to do so, really. But The first thing I read when I flipped and stopped to read was, 'do you find yourself thinking of the past? things you wish you could have done, or done better?". The light changed. Off I went.

Then my muse spoke to me.

It said, "The past catching up with you, that never happens. Never fear that. What happens to people, what catches up with them--is their fear of the future."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ie, you are kept in a state of fearing your future. That is the modern tactic that is at play. Recall that the mind is a device that works on pre-conceived notions, or shapes, ideals, words, structures, a whole cataloge of things that it keeps at the surface of the mind in order to identify things --faster. Fast enough to operate on a second to second basis. The same goes for expectations in the face of unknowns... and this is due to emotions. Our origins are designed around the idea of emotions coming first. So we feel our way through unknowns with our emotions, first. Then intellect. Fight or flight is paramount and owns your mind in the face of unknowns. See the thread of pilotsimone moving across the country, in the past few days. There it is, right there. It's not being in a war, it's the waiting for the war to begin that tears a person down.

The body uses emotions and direct physical input at the base level. Your thoughts have to start there as murmurings and then move upward through your edifice then into subconscious creation and then the mental mind speaks them, via the ego function. The ego function is part and parcel of the lower, subconscious emotional function. It is a reflection of the intellect of the body, given voice. It is emotionally based. Back to that thing of the voice in the head being created and shaped by the body, it is not the intellect itself.

If anyone thinks this is crazy, show a man an image of ...or in person, a woman whom he thinks is very beautiful and attractive. Watch the underlying monkey remove all of his highest level intellectual function. This has been tested and it is indeed true.

The thing is to know this sort of thing as an expression that can be communicated.

Before that, it must be identified and quantified. Only then can it be communicated and/or analyzed.

Jim Marrs, for example, writes incredible books that are incredibly effective for a few very simple reasons. One of the biggest, is the horrific things he is revealing, are not relayed in an emotional cast. None. Zip. Nada. Thus... the information gets into your skull.

[TWINCANS]

re "Note that the 'democrats' (liberals) attempt to reach people with calm reason, for the most part.

Note the 'republican' (conservative) line of going after people with emotion. To KEEP their group in thrall...."

I can't agree with that. It's simplistic. Actually the Liberals are the group that in my opinion are rife with political correctness overtones. They would be the modern day 1984'ers of the Orwell forecast. Always presenting themselves as above everyone, morally. That is not calm reason, it's moral blackmail.

The Conservatives are just plain thieves.

[Carmody]

i was speaking to a general audience, is my excuse. Flash is from Canada, where the 'conservatives (blue party) are the equivalent of the USA Republicans. The 'liberals' are indeed that, 'liberals'. their color is red. This can get confusing.

In Canada, they have toed that divisor line far better than the US counterparts have. Not good or bad, just different. Canadian Liberals tend to try to appeal to reason, their republican counterpart, more to base emotions. Similar to the USA, but not quite the same.

as for simplistic, if you wish to win the war of groupthink, then the 'issue' must be disarmed in how it emotionally devolves the target, and it must be simply identified with catchy and memorable phrasing, names, and ideas.

They (and any associated situations) must be made a laughing stock of, and it must go viral.

This, in order to enable thought to return in the people they are targeting.

Yes, the matter is not that simple but one needs a plan.

Propose a counter plan that is at least as simple and pertinent, and at least as transmissible.

"Kidnap Pilot's wife--Issue Demands" --- 'Life of Brian'

If any of you have not seen the film 'wag the dog' I urge you to see it immediately. It is gut bustingly funny, pee yourself funny, yet the film is incredibly important and potent. It outlines what you are up against and the kind of tactics that are used on the public.


Right now, the problem centers around the actual identification of the 'issue' in the overall public's eyes.

If one can frame that in a simple way which can be mentally seen by the public, then you stand to have a chance. For this point is at least half the current battle. This is one of -if not the- core things that needs be worked on, in order to push the pile forward.

Secret societies are secret, for this very specific and exact reason.

The point is to understand that their entire thrust is one of a defensive position. They are trying to maintain a state or condition and push it further at the same time.

In this, they are vulnerable. As an example...understand that half of the why that the Israeli's are so dang nasty...is due to the truth of their position as being - very weak.

Anyone who is constantly fighting a battle like that (and the so called 'Illuminati' are) is automatically in a weak position. The point of clarity comes on that when you understand that humanity is not even battling them. The bulk of humankind is unaware.

A perfectly phrased or framed question automatically begets the answer.

The better you become at clearly framing the question, the more the answer will emerge from the clearing fog.

[Flash]

Posted by Carmody (here)
i was speaking to a general audience, is my excuse. Flash is from Canada, where the 'conservatives (blue party) are the equivalent of the USA Republicans. The 'liberals' are indeed that, 'liberals'. their color is red. This can get confusing.

In Canada, they have toed that divisor line far better than the US counterparts have. Not good or bad, just different. Canadian Liberals tend to try to appeal to reason, their republican counterpart, more to base emotions. Similar to the USA, but not quite the same.

as for simplistic, if you wish to win the war of groupthink, then they 'enemy' must be disarmed in how they emotionally devolve the target, and they must be simply identified with catchy and memorable phrasing, names, and ideas.

They (and any associated situations) must be made a laughing stock of, and it must go viral.

This, in order to enable thought to return in the people they are targeting.

Yes, the matter is not that simple but one needs a plan.

Propose a counter plan that is at least as simple and pertinent, and at least as transmissible.

"Kidnap Pilot's wife--Issue Demands" --- 'Life of Brian'

If any of you have not seen the film 'wag the dog' I urge you to see it immediately. It is gut bustingly funny, pee yourself funny, yet the film is incredibly important and potent. It outlines what you are up against and the kind of tactics that are used on the public.


Right now, the problem centers around the actual identification of the enemy in the overall public's eyes.

If one can frame that in a simple way which can be mentally seen by the public, then you stand to have a chance. For this point is at least half the current battle. This is one of -if not the- core things that needs be worked on, in order to push the pile forward.

Secret societies are secret, for this very specific and exact reason.

Thanks very much for both replies. As I am not sleeping anylonger, I read them carefully. You are here helping me to transfrom my way of presenting.

I have been told I am a good presenter usually (live) because it is apparent that I love the crowd I am presenting to. I must say that I usually truly love people and although it is emotionally pleasant, I do not feel/live it as being only emotion based. I also like to communicate ideas, vulgarize them to make them easily grasped by regular folks. Well, as much as I can. Often I will start by putting people at ease, looking at their overtone, and then start the more reason based information. But I will often as well end up with some emotions. Does this means that the comprehension in the audience will be lacking? Even if the emotions are positive? I tought that reasoned information was easier to grasp and retain when coupled with positive emotions. But yes, there is probably a thrwaling effect. Does this hampers the communication of ideas already done though?

When I read you or Bill, yes, the content or ideas goes through (sometimes only, because following you could be a sport in itself), yes it is expressed in an equal non emotional tone, but you said it, this is not thrawling, not emotion based. It is as if if does not go down in the body and back up to the brain. It remains brain based - sometimes. It took me a long time to feel/live the heart that I was sure you had in your writings - and here I am not talking emotions, but really the heart, this encompassing benevolent life flowing through towards others. (I am not psychic yet, so I rely on reading lol).

This is very interesting Carmody.

Then what would you do to get "the pew", people, to achieve a notch higher in their communication abilities - apart from Twincans telepathy possibilities - so that we get out of this kind or primitive global hypnosis we are entrapped in (tearing the emotions thrawling effect based on fear)?. How do we do it efficiently and fast? And how do we pass information so that it is easily grasped by the average person?

Right now, the problem centers around the actual identification of the enemy in the overall public's eyes.

If one can frame that in a simple way which can be mentally seen by the public, then you stand to have a chance

Yes, how?

I will sleep on this and tomorrow will surely see it another dozen different ways as well. (It takes me more time for processing with, I bet, 70 IQ points less).

I love your muse, she has excellent advice, thank you for sharing this, she must also have known that I am presently personnally working on this (fear of the future).

Thanks.

[TWINCANS]

Darla has just posted a very interesting channelling from the Arcturians which has a few paragraphs at the opening that are relevant to this discussion. (Hint: they think improved communications will happen as part of the current progression)

[Flash]

Interesting Twincans this Darla posting, I just had a posts exchanges with Chicodoodoo and Northern Boy about beliefs as well. I really enjoyed reading her post. Thanks

[charlesfrith]

Great. That was what I wanted to know. Lots of useful context there. Thank you.

[loveandgratitude]

The Fabian Society – Creeping Communism

This, along with many other ‘Secret Societies’ work together for this ‘Common Purpose’…… we see this consistently with denial & delay tactics used in response to complaints by the people & the lies & omissions & twisted truths that spin doctors play out to the public in the mass media….

Creeping Communism

The Fabians whose logo until very recently was a Wolf in Sheep’s clothing are a breed of Communism who believed in Collectivism (Communism) by stealth and many of the Globalists would belong to this scheming organisation.

Since the collapse of Communism you can rest assured that they are now to be found amongst the Fabians.a

A LOOK AT LABIANS IN AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT

The Fabians are well established in Australia and many are in the Labor party. All of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam’s cabinet were Fabians and Prime Ministers Hawke and Keating also belonged to the Fabians.

On 19 July 2006 ex P.M. Malcolm Fraser spoke to the Fabians http://ttp//www.google.com.au/search...earch&meta=and on 22 MARCH 2006 P.M. Howard also spoke to them http://www.fabian.org.au/1048.asp

Either Gough Whitlam or John Faulkner is the current president and in the current Labor cabinet Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard amongst others are members of the society.

The London School of Economics has been their breeding ground.

Below is a history of this treacherous organisation which is intent on creating a one world dictatorial government.

*************

THE FABIAN SOCIETY

Notable members

Gough Whitlam (ALP Prime Minister 1972–75)
Bob Hawke (ALP Prime Minister 1983–1991)
Paul Keating (ALP Prime Minister 1991–1996)
John Cain (ALP Premier of Victoria)
Jim Cairns (ALP Deputy Prime Minister)
Don Dunstan (ALP Premier of South Australia)
Geoff Gallop (ALP Premier of Western Australia)
Neville Wran (ALP Premier of NSW 1976–86)
Frank Crean (ALP Deputy Prime Minister)
Arthur Calwell (ALP Former Leader)
John Faulkner (ALP Senator and National President)
Julia Gillard (ALP Deputy Prime Minister)
John Lenders (ALP Treasurer of Victoria)
Henry Hyde Champion (Journalist)
John Percy Jones (Businessman)
Nettie Palmer (Writer)
Ernest Besant-Scott (Historian)
Lucy Morice (Feminist)
Charles Strong (Clergyman)
William Henry Archer (Statistician)
Edward Shann (Economist)
Charles Marson (Clergyman)
David Charleston (Trade Unionist)
John Howlett Ross (Teacher)
Bernard O’Dowd (Writer)
Phillip Adams (Broadcaster)

But there was another movement coming to birth at about this same time that eventually gave competition to the hard-core Marxists. Some of the more erudite members of the wealthy and intellectual classes of England formed an organization to perpetuate the concept of collectivism but not exactly according to Marx. It was called the Fabian Society.

The name is significant, because it was in honor of Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrrucosus, the Roman general who, in the second century B.C., kept Hannibal at bay by wearing down his army with delaying tactics, endless maneuvering, and avoiding confrontation wherever possible. Unlike the Marxists who were in a hurry to come to power through direct confrontation with established governments, the Fabians were willing to take their time, to come to power without direct confrontation, working quietly and patiently from inside the target governments. To emphasize this strategy, and to separate themselves from the Marxists, they adopted the turtle as their symbol. And their official shield portrays an image of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Those two images perfectly summarize their strategy.

It is now 1884, and we find ourselves in Surrey, England observing a small group of these Fabians, sitting around a table in the stylish home of two of their more prominent members, Sydney and Beatrice Webb. The Webbs later would be known world wide as the founders of the London School of Economics. Their home eventually was donated to the Fabian Society and became its official headquarters. Around the table are such well-known figures as George Bernard Shaw, Arnold Toynbee, H.G. Wells, and numerous others of similar caliber. By the way, the Fabian Society still exists, and many prominent people are members, not the least of which is England’s Ex Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

H.G. Wells wrote a book to serve as a guide showing how collectivism can be embedded into society without arousing alarm or serious opposition. It was called The Open Conspiracy, and the plan was spelled out in minute detail. His fervor was intense. He said that the old religions of the world must give way to the new religion of collectivism. The new religion should be the state, he said, and the state should take charge of all human activity with, of course, elitists such as himself in control. On the very first page, he says:

“This book states as plainly and clearly as possible the essential ideas of my life, the perspective of my world…. This is my religion. Here are my directive aims and the criteria of all I do.”

1 When he said that collectivism was his religion, he was serious. Like many collectivists, he felt that traditional religion is a barrier to the acceptance of state power. It is a competitor for man’s loyalties. Collectivists see religion as a device by which the clerics keep the downtrodden masses content by offering a vision of something better in the next world. If your goal is to bring about change, contentment is not what you want. You want discontentment. That’s why Marx called religion the opiate of the masses.

2 It gets in the way of revolutionary change.

Wells said that collectivism should become the new opiate, that it should become the vision for better things in the next world. The new order must be built on the concept that individuals are nothing compared to the long continuum of society, and that only by serving society do we become connected to eternity. He was very serious.

http://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/200...ing-communism/

[Positive Vibe Merchant]

WOW!

Thanks L&G being a victorian, this is really interesting. Never would have thought a thread about Orsen Welles would sail all the way down here

PVM

[Flash]

Interesting, here the link and below some translations: http://raisondetat.forumactif.com/t1...fabian-society

Le groupe était essentiellement formés d'intellectuels issus de la classe moyenne anglaise. Parmi ses membres notables figurent : George Bernard Shaw, Walter Crane, Edith Nesbit, Leonard Woolf, Emmeline Pankhurst, H. G. Wells1, Annie Besant, Graham Wallas, Sidney Webb, Beatrice Webb.
The group (Fabian) was composed of intellectuals from the English middle classe. Renown members are:....

Des sociétés similaires existent aussi en Australie (the Australian Fabian Society), au Canada (the Douglas-Coldwell Foundation) et en Nouvelle-Zélande.
Similar societies in Australia and Canada

Critiques Critics

Leon Trotsky pensait que le fabianisme était une tentative pour sauver le capitalisme de la classe ouvrière.
Trotsky tought that fabianism was to try to save the capitalism from the working class.

Il écrit notamment : « à travers toute l'histoire du parti ouvrier britannique, il y eut des pressions de la bourgeoisie sur le prolétariat par le biais de radicaux et d'intellectuels de salon qui rejettent la lutte des classes et défendent le principe de solidarité sociale, prêchent la collaboration avec la bourgeoisie, brident, affaiblissent et dégradent politiquement le prolétariat. »
He wrote: "throughout the history of the British workers party, the "bourgeois" (gentrhy or upper middle class ) has put pressures on the working class through "salon" intellectuals rejecting the classes struggles in favour of social solidarity, preaching collaboration with the uppper middle class, weakening and degrading the working class".

« Le fabianisme, le MacDonaldisme et le pacifisme jouent aujourd'hui le même rôle vis à vis de l'histoire du prolétariat. Ils sont la propagande principale de l'impérialisme britannique, et de la bourgeoisie européenne, si ce n'est de celle mondiale. »
"The fabianism, the MacDonaldisme and the pacifism play the same role throughout the history of the working class. They are the main propaganda of the British imperialism, of the European upper middle class, if not the the world upper middle class."

Dans un article du journal The Guardian du 14 février 2008, suite aux excuses faites par le premier ministre australien Kevin Rudd aux "Générations volées", Geoffrey Robertson critique les socialistes fabiens pour « avoir fourni la justification intellectuelle à la politique eugénique qui a conduit au scandale des générations volées. »
In an article of The Guardian on February 2008, following excuses by the Australian Prime Minister kevin Rudd to the "stolen generations", Geoffrey Robertson criticise the Fabian Socialists for having supplied the intellectual justification to the eugenic politic that provoked the scandal link to the stolen generations.

Le livre 1984 de George Orwell est peut-être une dystopie, satire de ce qu'il imaginait être le monde prôné par les Fabiens
The book 1984 of George Orwell may be a dystopy, satyre of how the imagines what the Fabian world would be.

There is more interesting stuff, I will translate later.

[mondaze]

now about george orwell, rob any more clues?

[Lord Sidious]

You guys are still not looking into the people he associated with enough.
You have some of it.
Keep looking and you will find it.