FABAIN WOLVES + MARXIST SOCIALISTS + COMMUNISTS
Former Russian President
Mikhail Gorbachev “Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep.”
Former Russian socialist Communist President Mikhail Gorbachev’s November 1987 speech to the Soviet Politburo. source
Considering the amount of American “entertainment” media we have shoved down our throats is fair to say that Australia is meant to go to sleep as well – To this very day Mikhail Gorbachev is still very much loved around the world – He even has his communist loving feet sunk into America with his own tax free foundation called, The Gorbachev Foundation
KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov Warns America: The process of putting people to sleep and demoralization, de-stabilization of society by the use of “active measures” is laid out in plain shocking detail.
video link
This applies to us – Australia consumes the same sleeping pills given to America.
Recapping some of the above.
The International Communist party in 1924 sort to take over the Australian Labor Party
The traitor leading that “difficult but effective” take over is praised on the Australian government web site
Labor / Fabian logo is a wolf in sheep’s clothing
Their official logo is a ‘turtle’ representing SLOW incremental “creeping” change.
(fast change would wake sleeping Australians up to the take over scam)
Communist sell the same “socialism” crap Fabians do.
Large tax exempt foundations and their commie plot still exist publicly unchallenged, and unreported in the main stream media that is bought and paid for by the same foundations.
Two ways to invade a country.
At the end of a gun barrel
Dress up in sheep’s clothing
Fabians are also International
Anthony Charles Lynton Blair
Former British Labour PM and Fabian
Gordon Brown present Labour PM and Fabian.
FABIANS COMMUNITARIANS COMMUNISTS’…………..PC CULTURAL MARXISTS’
QUESTION- WHY ARE THE TORIES- LIBDEMS GREENS ETC NOT SPEAKING OUT……………ANSWER IS TOO SIMPLE…..ISN’T IT?
When you buy gold, you’d expect to be given gold – But when Australian’s vote Labor, they are also given something called “Fabianism”
Bob Hawke
Fabian Labor “I gladly acknowledge the debt of my own
Government to Fabianism”
Former Australian Fabian Labor PM Robert Hawke
Fabians are unaccountable “socialists”
36+ years of Labor PM Fabian Socialism
http://www.australiamatters.com/fabian.html
LINK IN COMMENT SECTION EASIER ACCESS….
EACH AND EVERY BRITISH LABOUR PM WAS A FABIAN TOO!!
TRANSPARENCY COMRADE BROWN?
MORE LIKE BULLSHIT!!
RED AS HELL’S FIRE…………COMMIE FILTH!
Centurean2\'s Weblog 
http://www.australiamatters.com/fabian.html
NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY
BOOK…
Click to access None_Dare_Call_It_Conspiracy.pdf
98 PAGES…
Watch Rothkopf give a lecture on the power of the global elite. He identifies Bohemian Grove as a key meeting venue for the globalists. Decide for yourself whether he is a fawning sycophant or an objective critic. Rothkopf creates a false paradigm by claiming that freedom is at the opposite end of the scale to justice and essentially argues that the world’s problems can only be solved by moving away from freedom towards justice, which is a complete contradiction in terms.
Rothkopf’s approach is to blame the world’s problems on free-market capitalism and and imply that global elitists are a new phenomenon and therefore part of the solution, when in reality the elite created monopoly capitalism and have been a hidden-hand manipulating world events and offering solutions to problems they created for centuries.
http://www.australiamatters.com/rothkopf.html
THE STAINED GLASS WINDOW FROM THE FABIAN SOCIETY
Updated 2006 August 22
This is the stained-glass window from the Beatrice Webb House in Surrey, England, former headquarters of the Fabian Society. It was designed by George Bernard Shaw and depicts Sidney Webb and Shaw striking the Earth with hammers to “REMOULD IT NEARER TO THE HEART’S DESIRE,” a line from Omar Khayyam. Note the wolf in sheep’s clothing in the Fabian crest above the globe. The window is now on display at the London School of Economics (LSE), which was founded by Sydney and Beatrice Webb.
“The window was subsequently stolen from the house in 1978,” says LSE’s archivist, Sue Donnelly. “It surfaced in Phoenix, Arizona, soon after, but then disappeared again until it suddenly resurfaced at a sale at Sotheby’s in July 2005.” The window was purchased by the Webb Memorial Trust and now is on loan to the LSE where it is displayed in the schools Shaw Library. In April of 2006, the window was officially unvieled by a ceremony attended by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is a member of the Fabian Society. [1]
The Fabians originally were an elite group of intellectuals who formed a semi-secret society for the purpose of bringing socialism to the world. Whereas Communists wanted to establish socialism quickly through violence and revolution, the Fabians preferred to do it slowly through propaganda and legislation. The word socialism was not to be used. Instead, they would speak of benefits for the people such as welfare, medical care, higher wages, and better working conditions. In this way, they planned to accomplish their objective without bloodshed and even without serious opposition. They scorned the Communists, not because they disliked their goals, but because they disagreed with their methods. To emphasize the importance of gradualism, they adopted the turtle as the symbol of their movement. The three most prominent leaders in the early days were Sidney and Beatrice Webb and George Bernard Shaw. [2] A stained-glass window from the Beatrice Webb House in Surrey, England is especially enlightening. Across the top appears the last line from Omar Khayyam:
Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire
To grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,
Would we not shatter it to bits, and then
Remould it nearer to the heart’s desire!
Beneath the line Remould it nearer to the heart’s desire, the mural depicts Shaw and Webb striking the earth with hammers. Across the bottom, the masses kneel in worship of a stack of books advocating the theories of socialism. Thumbing his nose at the docile masses is H.G. Wells who, after quitting the Fabians, denounced them as “the new machiavellians.” The most revealing component, however, is the Fabian crest which appears Between Shaw and Webb. It is a wolf in sheep’s clothing!
——————————————————————————–
REFERENCES
[1] “Wit, wisdom and windows,” by Andrew Walker, BBC News, 2006, April 28: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4944100.stm.
If the original site does not respond, click here.
[2] The Creature from Jekyll Island; A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by G. Edward Griffin: http://www.realityzone.com/creatfromjek.html.
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=fabianwindow&refpage=issues
THATCHER WASN’T EVEN A TWINKLE IN ANYONES EYE-YET IS BLAMED FOR FREE MARKET!
In 1820, Britain’s Parliament passed a declaration of principle which was to usher in a series of changes which led, as one consequence, to the outbreak of World War I and its tragic aftermath almost a century later.
Acting on the urgings of a powerful group of London shipping and banking interests centered around the Bank of England and Alexander Baring of Baring Brothers merchant bankers, Parliament passed a Statement of Principle in support of the concept advocated by Scottish economist Adam Smith several decades earlier: so-called “absolute free trade.”
By 1846, this declaration of principle had become formalized in a Parliamentary repeal of domestic English agriculture protection, the famous Corn Laws. The Corn Laws repeal was based on the calculation of powerful financial and trade interests of the City of London, that their world dominance gave them a decisive advantage, which they should push to the hilt. If they dominated world trade, “free trade” could only ensure that their dominance would grow at the expense of other less-developed trading nations.
Under the hegemony of free trade, British merchant banks reaped enormous profits on the India-Turkey-China opium trade, while the British Foreign Ministry furthered their banking interests by publicly demanding China open its ports to “free trade,” during the British Opium Wars.
A new weekly propaganda journal of these powerful City of London merchant and finance interests, The Economist, was founded in 1843 with the explicit purpose of agitating for the repeal of the Corn Laws.
The British Tory Party of Sir Robert Peel pushed through the fateful Corn Law Repeal in May 1846, a turning point for the worse not only in British, but in world history. Repeal opened the door to a flood of cheap products in agriculture, which created ruin among not only English but also other nations’ farmers. The
{p. 11} merchants’ simple dictum, “buy cheap…sell dear,” was raised to the level of national economic strategy. Consumption was deemed the sole purpose of production.
Britain’s domestic agriculture and farmers were ruined by the loss of the Corn Laws protectionism. Irish farmers were emiserated, as their largest export market suddenly lowered food prices drastically, as a result of Corn Law repeal. The mass starvation and emigration of Irish peasants and their families in the late 1840’s – the tragic Irish Potato Famine of 1845-6 and its aftermath – was a direct consequence of this “free trade” policy of Britain. England’s prior policy toward Ireland prohibited development of a strong self-sufficient manufacture, demanding it remain the economically captive bread basket to supply England’s needs. Now that bread basket itself was destroyed in pursuit of the fictional free trade.
After 1846, Hindu peasants from Britain’s Indian colony, with their dirt poor wage cost, competed against British and Irish farmers, for the market of the British “consumer.” Wage levels inside Britain began falling with the price of bread. The English Poor Laws granted compensation for workers earning below human subsistence wage, with income supplement payments pegged to the price of a loaf of wheat bread. Thus, as bread prices plunged, so did living standards in England.
In effect, repeal of Corn Laws protectionism opened the floodgates throughout the British Empire to a “cheap labor policy.” The only ones to benefit, following an initial surge of cheap food prices in England, were the giant international London trading houses, and the merchant banks which financed them. The class separations of British society were aggravated by a growing separation of a tiny number of very wealthy from the growing masses of very poor, as a lawful consequence of “free trade.”1
E. Peshine Smith, an American economist and fierce opponent of British free trade, writing at the time, summarized the effect of the British Empire’s free trade hegemony over the world economy of the 1850’s: “Such has been the policy which still controls the legislation of Great Britain. It has, in practice, regarded the nation collectively as a gigantic trader, with the rest of the world, possessing a great stock of goods, not for use, but for sale, endeavouring to produce them cheaply, so that it might undersell rival shopkeepers; and looking upon the wages paid to its own people as so much lost to the profits of the establishment.”2
{p. 12} Peshine Smith contrasted this “nation as giant shopkeeper” doctrine of the Britain of Adam Smith and company to the growing national economic thinking emerging on the Continent of Europe in the 1850’s, especially under the German Zollverein and other national economic policies of Friedrich List.3
“Their policy will be dictated by the instincts of producers, and not that of shopkeepers. They will look to the aggregate of production, not to the rate of profits in trade, as the test of national prosperity. Accordingly, the great Continental nations, France, Russia and the German States – united in the Zollverein or Customs Union – have practically repudiated the idea which has so long controlled the commercial policy of England. What England has gained by that policy is thus described by one of her own learned and respected writers, Joseph Kay, who speaks of that nation as the one ‘where the aristocracy is richer and more powerful than any other country in the world, the poor are more oppressed, more pauperized, more numerous in comparison to the other classes, more irreligious and very much worse educated than the poor of any other European nation, solely excepting uncivilized Russia and Turkey, enslaved Italy, mis- governed Portugal and revolutionized Spain’.”4
So a campaign began to shape ruling English ideology in 1851, using a viciously false Malthusian argument of over-population, rather than admit the reality of a deliberate policy of forced underinvestment in new productive technologies. The name given the political doctrine which rationalized the brutal economic policy, was English Liberalism. In essence, English Liberalism, as it was defined towards the end of the 19th century, justified development of an ever more powerful imperial elite class, ruling on behalf of the “vulgar ignorant masses,” who could not be entrusted to rule on their own behalf.
But the underlying purpose of the liberal elites of 19th century British government and public life was to preserve and serve the interests of an exclusive private power. In the last part of the 19th century, that private power was concentrated in the hands of a tiny number of bankers and institutions of the City of London.
Britain’s “Informal Empire”
Such free trade manipulation has been the essence of British
{p. 13} economic strategy for the past one hundred fifty years. Britain’s genius has been a chameleon-like ability to adapt that policy to a shifting international economic reality. But the core policy has remained – Adam Smith’s “absolute free trade,” as a weapon against sovereign national economic policy of rival powers.
By the end of the 19th century, the British establishment began an intense debate over how to maintain its global empire. Amid slogans about a new era of “anti-imperialism,” beginning the last quarter of the 19th century, Britain embarked on a more sophisticated and far more effective form for maintaining its dominant world role, through what came to be called “informal empire.” While maintaining core imperial possessions in India and the Far East, British capital flowed in prodigious amounts into especially Argentina, Brazil and the United States, to form bonds of financial dependence in many ways more effective than formal colonial titles.
The notion of special economic relationships with “client states,” the concept of “spheres of influence” as well as of “balance-of-power diplomacy,” all came out of this complex weave of British “Informal Empire” toward the end of the last century.
Since the English defeat of Spain’s Armada in 1588, Britain had used the special circumstance that it was an island apart from Continental Europe. She was saved the costs of having to raise a large standing army to defend her interests, leaving her free to concentrate on mastery of the seas. Britain’s looting of the wealth of the vast reaches of the world allowed her to maintain as well a balance-of-power on the Continent, creating or financing coalitions against whichever nation seemed on the verge of dominating the European land mass stretching from Russia to Spain at any given time.
In the aftermath of the 1815 Congress of Vienna, in the reorganized Europe following the defeat of Napoleon, England perfected the cynical diplomatic strategy known as “Balance of Power.” Never was it admitted by Her Majesty’s Foreign Office establishment that, as on a scale, with weights added to equalize opposite sides of a center “balance point,” British Balance of Power diplomacy was rigorously defined, always, from the fulcrum or centerpoint of London, that is, how England could play off rival economic powers to unique English advantage.
http://www.mailstar.net/engdahl.html
Why Karl Marx Advocated Free Trade (Capitalism)
Peter Myers, Canberra, Australia, August 2, 2001; update January 7, 2003. My comments are shown {thus}. Write to me at contact.html.
You are at http://mailstar.net/classwar.html.
Karl Marx advocated Free Trade, i.e. Capitalism, because (a) whereas Protection builds up the nation-state, Free Trade breaks it down, as a prelude to the creation of a world-state by the Capitalists (b) Free Trade breaks down traditional culture, as a prelude to the creation of a world culture (c) Free Trade exacerbates class warfare, and through this the Capitalists will lose control of the world-state – they will be defeated by the impoverished classes, with the help of their backers in the higher classes.
Free Trade -> Misery -> Social Revolution.
(1) Karl Marx on Free Trade (2) Frederick Engels on Free Trade (3) Trotskyists for Free Trade
(1) Karl Marx on Free Trade
Karl Marx’s major statement about Free Trade was an address delivered to the Democratic association of Brussels, Belgium, on January 9, 1848, around the same time as he wrote the Communist Manifesto.
http://www.mailstar.net/classwar.html
STILL THINK WE LIVE UNDER TRUE CAPITALISM?
READ MISES— NOT A FABIAN ECONOMIST……………..UNLIKE THE PEADO FOLLOWED BY THE WEST THE FABIAN JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES…………..