The first prerequisite to transform society is to transform its culture; sap and destroy its belief structure, much as termites gnaw at the foundations of a house, until nothing but a shell is left which can then be collapsed into a pile of dusty rubble with a push. The procedure requires stealth and sleight of hand; any society openly and violently attacked will respond in kind, but when the enemies of the society infiltrate slowly and unobtrusively, their presence goes largely unnoticed. This was the principle l that led to the creation of the Fabian Society, in England, some 131 years ago, dedicated to the advancement of socialism through gradual and reformist means; the name was taken from Fabius Maximus, a Roman consul who, after disastrous Roman defeats during the Second Punic War at the hands of the Carthaginian general Hannibal, changed tactics to those of harassment, ambushes, delays and above all, avoidance of pitched, frontal battles. The following is from the Society’s first pamphlet:
“For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did most patiently, when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain, and fruitless.”
The Fabians and their offshoot, the Progressives along with the rest of the left-wing political spectrum, have done a great job of infiltration. They did not storm the citadels of power but instead targeted the media and academia, positions that allowed them to influence public opinion through the former and to mold the minds of students through the latter. This helps explain why a sexual preference that was considered a mental disorder not that many years ago has not only become mainstream but has evolved to the point where same-sex marriage is now equated with marriage between a man and a woman. This also explains why a violent, aggressive religious philosophy, dedicated to the eradication of all other religions, is presented as “the religion of peace” and any criticism of it is rejected as examples of “Islamophobia”, which together with its twin “homophobia”, when hurled at any person or institution, designate them as “haters”, “bigots” and as unworthy of any consideration.
The propaganda is subtle and low-keyed, but it is there; the Law and Order franchise, one of the best written and acted crime dramas, nevertheless, when analyzed, show the presence of certain stereotypes: homosexuals are invariably the victims of religious bigots; Muslims are attacked by people who fail to comprehend the “peaceful” nature of Islam; evangelical Christians and religious Jews are more often than not presented as narrow minded, fundamentalist bigots and what is a show involving a Catholic priest in which he is not presented as either a molester of children or at the very least suspected of it? All that is not shouted at the viewer but presented in a very low-keyed manner worked very skillfully into the plot. Are the writers conscious propagandists? Certainly not; it is just that their political and social views bleed through the scripts. Are there any writers with other views? Yes, but do they get hired? Not really, not when producers, directors and the Hollywood and TV establishments, which lean so far left, monopolize the industry.
The news media is no better; suffice as an example the prodigious effort at CNN to not characterize the Chattanooga shooter as a Muslim just because his first name was Muhammed. Remember when Bill O’Reilly was a guest at The View and both Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar walked out when he stated that Muslims attacked us on 9/11? What did they think? That we were attacked by either Hindus or Buddhists?
The two catch phrases of the left that permeate society and have made their way into the school curricula are the ubiquitous “don’t be judgemental “ and “don’t generalize” Well, any time you evaluate a situation, a person or an opinion, you are being “judgemental” and if you cannot generalize, you cannot think; you must have the ability to analyze individual events and draw a general conclusion from them, or “generalize” The Progressives use both expressions as sledgehammers against any dissenter; the former when they want to silence any criticism of behaviors endorsed by them and the latter when they want to exonerate any group suspected of violent tendencies.
Their ultimate objective is the complete control of society in order create a world run by the elites, much along the lines of medieval societies, where the lord of the manor controlled the lives of the peasants that supplied the labor. We are losing the old American egalitarianism; we now have a sort of aristocracy that boasts degrees from Ivy League universities; we talk of the Kennedys, the Bushes and now the Clintons. The Progressives have infiltrated both parties and when one of them finally screws things up enough, the voters have a knee-jerk reaction and say “Let’s vote for the other guy and throw the bums out!”, except the other guy is just another member of the club, who either slows down or accelerates the process. Has anyone noticed the visceral reaction against the Tea Party? And that the most antagonistic are the establishment wings of either party? The Tea Party has unwittingly stumbled upon the crux of the matter when they speak of “Republicats” and “Democrans” It is unfortunate that their leadership lacks the political sophistication to understand the reason behind the similarity; if they ever do, they could become a formidable political force. Nevertheless, the elites have decided they must be crushed before they really catch on.
To change society, barriers have to be destroyed and old ideas disposed of; one such barrier is Christianity, the pillar upon which Western Civilization rests. If you think that the sudden snowballing of the notion of same-sex marriage has anything to do with the “compassionate” concern for what probably amounts to no more than 5% of the population, think again. The beautiful slogans, the rainbow flag and the “love wins” stickers are props for the unsophisticated; their real target are Christians as the lawsuits against photographers, bakers and chapels who decline to cater same-sex weddings based on their religious principles and the recent suggestions to end the tax-exempt status of churches who would not officiate gay weddings clearly demonstrate. The case of the Christian bakery owners who refused to bake a cake for a lesbian couple that deliberately targeted their business, is a prime example. The state of Oregon not only fined them $135,000 but in a fascistic manner placed a gag order forbidding them to speak publicly on the matter. Calls for the legalization of polygamous marriage are already being heard and those for incestuous marriages are not far behind.
The claim is often made that religion is not under attack and they emphasize their continuous support for “freedom of worship” and they equate it with freedom of religion. It is a well thought out argument; however, freedom of worship is not the same as freedom of religion. Within the confines of your religious institutions, you are free to worship as you please be it Jesus, Allah, Vishna, Buddha, Satan or a cat, if you want, but that freedom ends as soon as you leave the building. The Soviet Union guaranteed “freedom of worship”. Freedom of religion, on the other hand, extends to the whole sphere of your life and it protects you against being compelled to act against your religious principles. It protected the conscientious objectors during WWI, WWII and Vietnam, who refused to bear arms but served instead as stretcher bearers, ambulance drivers and on medical evacuation teams. The Oregon bakers are free to worship at the church of their choice but they are not allowed to practice their religion outside of their church, especially when they were deliberately targeted by a lesbian couple who could have gone to any one of dozens of other bakeries, gay or otherwise. What about the Little Sisters of the Poor, who are being bullied into providing birth control and abortion coverage for their employees, something that goes against their Catholic principles and which, if compelled, they will refuse to do?
The Progressives have infiltrated the media, colleges and universities, the entertainment industry and both political parties; the only obstacle they have left is Christianity and since the Catholic Church is the largest and most unified of all religious institutions, they are targeted from all sides. If it falls, the others are so fragmented and in some cases already infiltrated, that they would be easy pickings. They will be confined to their religious buildings and their influence outside of them will be suppressed.
Under the principle that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” the Fabian socialists and their Progressive twins have allied themselves with the Islamic extremists and unleashed them against their adversaries, Christianity and Western Civilization, which they dream to replace with their version of an “orderly” and “controlled” society where everyone will be rewarded “according to their merits and according to their needs”. Only they will decide what the “merits” and the “needs” are and much like the lords of the manors, they will reward -or punish- the serfs. We will be serfs, albeit serfs with Iphones, laptops and Ipods, but serfs nevertheless.
The Progressives have never been as close to fulfilling their goals as they are now; their time has come and they will strike hard. We are very close to the tipping point, if we have not reached it already.