More John Birch Society, paranoid claptrap. Griffin doesn't even define "Fabian", the term he uses throughout the article to describe this "they" he creates. Is it another name for the CFR? Is the CFR part of "the Fabians"? Are the Fabians a formal organization. Fabian is typically a term to describe a gradualist approach to accomplishing a goal. Perle's prescription for total war is hardly gradualist, Fabian therefore being a ridiculous description of his view. And, BTW, "the Fabians" aren't unanimous behind Perle's proposal, which Griffin calls part of the Fabian plan for "total war and global power". Believe it or not, there is debate among "them".
From the article:
The Leninist faction publicly pretends to oppose terrorism; but, covertly, they are the
primary sponsors of terrorism, which they use as a weapon against the Fabian faction. Their
game plan is to exhaust the United States and her Fabian allies in nuclear or bio-chemical
war with puppet regimes so that Russia and China can emerge, unscathed, as the dominant
world power. No one should underestimate the capacity of the Leninist network to
implement that scenario. It would be foolhardy to take comfort in the thought that
Communism is dead. Communism is only a word. The people who put Communism on the
map seldom called themselves Communists. They always referred to themselves as
Leninists, and they still do. Don’t be fooled by the word game. Communism may or may not
be dead, but Leninism lives and is stronger than ever.
So let me see if I've got this right: there are two factions, the Leninists and the Fabians? Are they working toward the same goal? Are they enemies? No, those who put Communism on the map did call themselves Communists. Even the great "Leninist, not Communist", Lenin himself, referred to himself as a Communist. And who is a part of the "Leninist faction".
In the historic conflict between Israelis and Arabs, the Fabians have consistently
directed the United States government to take sides with Israel, even to the extent of
supplying military equipment used against Palestinian civilians.
Yes, even that staunch Fabian, Pat Robertson who wrote a book himself several years ago exposing this world government conspiracy.
Remember, in the collectivist mind, anything can be justified by theorizing a greater good for a greater number
Yeah, even that Fabian, collectivist act of dropping nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Since World War II, they have launched military strikes against Panama, Kosovo, Albania, Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq, Kuwait, Sudan, Haiti, Granada, Somalia, and Afghanistan – supposedly in pursuit of stopping drugs, defending freedom, or resisting Communism. In most cases, these objectives were not achieved. The single, most consistent result has been hostility toward America.
Yeah, there's a surefire strategy for success: let's take over the world by making them mad at us. Sounds like a heck of an overarching strategy tying Reagan's attack to rescue Americans in Grenada and driving the Cubans out to Afghanistan which harbored al Qaeda.
Since the early 1980s, the United States government, under the control of Fabians, has provided covert funding and training for just about every terrorist regime in the world. Bin Ladin and Hussein are prominent on the list, but they are not alone. The list is very long. We are told that this was a well-intentioned policy to create opposition to the Soviets, particularly in Afghanistan but that, somehow, it backfired on us. That’s called the blowback theory. It is, of course, a smokescreen. How do we know that? Because the aid to terrorist regimes did not stop when the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan. It continues to this day. It is no longer covert; it’s right out in the open. The Fabians currently are sending technology, money, and trade to Russia and China, countries that, by now, everyone knows are suppliers of the very terrorist regimes we are fighting, and that includes weapons of mass destruction.
So what Griffin can't do by paranoia he does by obfuscation, or probably more correctly his own self-delusion. He somehow ties aid to those fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan to aiding the Russia and China. And most of the aid that China sends these terrorists, directly and indirectly, is because there really isn't much we can do to stop them--short of war. But, hey, if we went to war, that would be part of that total war thing again, wouldn't it?
the CFR drive for more government and abandonment of national sovereignty
Wait a minute. From my reading of the neo-cons, and especially the liberal criticisms of the neo-cons, they are throwing American sovereignty around and not paying attention to the concerns of our allies. Which is it? Are "the Fabians", or CFR or whoever these phantoms are, trying to take away our sovereignty or to flaunt it?
He then quotes, or partially so, a quote from Tommy Franks in
Cigar Afficianado:
The western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty…. What does that mean? It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive casualty-producing event somewhere in the western world – it may be in the United Sates of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass-casualty producing event. Which, in fact, then begins to potentially unravel the fabric of our Constitution.
Griffin takes a likely scenario that Franks laid out as probably a justification for our attack on Iraq, to avoid this very scenario (we can' know Franks' intention, though, as it is obvious from the beginning of the quote that Griffin ripped it out of context and then added the "...", which simply left more doubt as to context being left behind. Griffin's use of this quote should be put alongside the multitudes of loony, liberal websites which did the same thing.
And then he had the gall to use it as a preface to a statement by Hermann Goering!
Pure hogwash!