DON’T KID YOURSELF THE POLITICAL CORPORATE LIARS WORK FOR YOU- THAT’S A MILLION MILES FROM THE TRUTH!!
Rothschilds & Rockefellers –
Trillionaires Of The World
Learn your history before it repeats on you.
By New World Order
12-3-7
“Money is Power”, or shall we say, “The Monopoly to Create Credit Money and charge interest is Absolute Power”. (Alex James)
Amsel (Amschel) Bauer Mayer Rothschild, 1838:
“Let me issue and control a Nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws”.
Letter written from London by the Rothschilds to their New York agents introducing their banking method into America: “The few who can understand the system will be either so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class, while, on the other hand, that great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that Capital derives from the system, will bear its burden without complaint and, perhaps, without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.”
Nathan Rothschild said to the Commons Secret Committee on the question early in 1819: “In what line of business are you? – Mostly in the foreign banking line. “Have the goodness to state to the Committee in detail, what you conceive would be the consequence of an obligation imposed upon the Bank [of England, which he owned] to resume cash payments at the expiration of a year from the present time? – I do not think it can be done without very great distress to this country; it would do a great deal of mischief; we may not actually know ourselves what mischief it might cause. “Have the goodness to explain the nature of the mischief, and in what way it would be produced? – Money will be so very scarce, every article in this country will fall to such an enormous extent, that many persons will be ruined.”
The director of the Prussian Treasury wrote on a visit to London that Nathan Rothschild had as early as 1817: “.., incredible influence upon all financial affairs here in London. It is widely stated.., that he entirely regulates the rate of exchange in the City. His power as a banker is enormous”.
Austrian Prince Mettemich’s secretary wrote of the Rothschilds, as early as 1818, that: “… they are the richest people in Europe.”
Referring to James Rothschild, the poet Heinrich Heine said: “Money is the god of our times, and Rothschild is his prophet.”
James Rothschild built his fabulous mansion, called Ferrilres, 19 miles north-east of Paris. Wilhelm I, on first seeing it, exclaimed: “Kings couldn’t afford this. It could only belong to a Rothschild!”
Author Frederic Morton wrote that the Rothschilds had: “conquered the World more thoroughly, more cunningly, and much more lastingly than all the Caesars before…”
As Napoleon pointed out: “Terrorism, War & Bankruptcy are caused by the privatization of money, issued as a debt and compounded by interest “- he cancelled debt and interest in France – hence the Battle of Waterloo.
Some writers have claimed that Nathan Rothschild “warned that the United States would find itself involved in a most disastrous war if the bank’s charter were not renewed.” (do you see the similarities here? If you don’t play the game an economic disaster will fall on you and you will be destroyed.)
“There is but one power in Europe and that is Rothschild.” 19th century French commentator.
Lord Rothschild (Rockefellers and Rothschilds’ relatives) in his book The Shadow of a Great Man quotes a letter sent from Davidson on June 24, 1814 to Nathan Rothschild, “As long as a house is like yours, and as long as you work together with your brothers, not a house in the world will be able to compete with you, to cause you harm or to take advantage of you, for together you can undertake and perform more than any house in the world.” The closeness of the Rothschild brothers is seen in a letter from Soloman (Salmon) Rothschild to his brother Nathan on Feb. 28, 1815, “We are like the mechanism of a watch: each part is essential.” (2) This closeness is further seen in that of the 18 marriages made by Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s grandchildren – 16 were contracted between first cousins.
“Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.” The Communist Manifesto. In the case of the Bolshevik revolution, Rothschilds/ Rockefellers’ Chase Bank owned the state. In the US, the FED owners “own” the state.
Rothschilds’ favorite saying who along with the Rockefellers are the major Illuminati Banking Dynasties: “Who controls the issuance of money controls the government!”
Nathan Rothschild said (1777-1836): “I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire and I control the British money supply.”
Rockefeller is reported to have said: “Competition is a sin”. “Own nothing. Control everything”. Because he wants to centralize control of everything and enslave us all, i.e. the modern Nimrod or Pharaoh.
The Rothschild were behind the colonization and occupations of India and the Rothschild owned British Petroleum was granted unlimited rights to all offshore Indian oil, which is still valid till this day.
“Give me the control of the credit of a nation, and I care not who makes the laws.” The famous boastful statement of Nathaniel Meyer Rothschild, speaking to a group of international bankers, 1912: “The few who could understand the system (cheque, money, credits) will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.” The boastful statement by Rothschild Bros. of London.
These people are the top masterminds and conspired for the creation of illegal FEDERAL RESERVE BANK in 1913: Theodore Roosevelt, Paul Warburg – Representative Of Rothschild, Woodrow Wilson – U.S. President Signed FED Into Act, Nelson W. Aldrich – Representative Of Rockefeller, Benjamin Strong – Representative Of Rockefeller, Frank A. Vanderlip – Representative Of Rockefeller, John D. Rockefeller – Rockefeller Himself, Henry Davison – Representative Of J. P. Morgan, Charles Norton – Representative Of J. P. Morgan.
In the last century, members of the British Fabian Society dynastic banking families in the City of London financed the Communist takeover of Russia. Trotsky in his biography refers to some of the loans from these British financiers going back as far as 1907. By 1917 the major subsidies and funding for the Bolshevik Revolution were co-ordinated and arranged by Sir George Buchanan and Lord Alfred Milner. [no doubt using money from Cecil Rhodes’ South African gold and diamond legacy – Ed] The Communist system in Russia was a “British experiment” designed ultimately to become the Fabian Socialist model for the British takeover of the World through the UN and EU. The British plan to takeover the World and bring in a “New World Order” began with the teachings of John Ruskin and Cecil Rhodes at Oxford University. Rhodes in one of his wills in 1877 left his vast fortune to Lord Nathan Rothschild as trustee to set up the Rhodes Scholarship Program at Oxford to indoctrinate promising young graduates for the purpose, and also establish a secret society [Royal Institute of International Affairs RIIA, which branched into the Round Table, the Bilderbergers, the CFR, the Trilateral, etc — Ed] for leading business and banking leaders around the World who would work for the City to bring in their Socialist World government.
Rothschild appointed Lord Alfred Milner to implement the plan.
Benjamin Freedman (Friedman) said this in 1961, Washington (he was a millionaire insider in international Zionist organizations, friend to 4 US presidents, and was also part of the 117-man strong Zionist delegation at the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 where Germany was forced into bankruptcy to the Zionist BankLords and social chaos): “Two years into WW1, Germany, which was then winning the war, offered Britain and France a negotiated peace deal, but German Zionist groups seeing the opportunity made a deal with Britain to get the United States into the war if Britain promised to give the Zionists Palestine.”
In other words, they made this deal: “We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay us is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.” They made that promise, in October of 1916. And shortly after that — I don’t know how many here remember it — the United States, which was almost totally pro-German because the newspapers and mass communications media here were controlled by the Zionist bankers who owned the major commercial banks and the 12 Federal Reserve Banks (the original Stockholders of the Federal Reserve Banks in 1913 were the Rockefeller’ s, JP Morgan, Rothschild’s, Lazard Freres, Schoellkopf, Kuhn-Loeb, Warburgs, Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs, all with roots in Germany’s Zionists like the British Royal family, J.P. Morgan, Carnegie, Bush, Rumsfeld, Clintons, the Nazis that were brought into the CIA, etc. http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml ) and they were pro-German because they wanted to use Germany to destroy the Czar of Russia and let the Communists whom they funded take over. The German Zionist bankers — Rothschilds, Rockefeller, Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: “As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!” They poured money into Germany, fighting with Germany against Russia, to lick the Czarist regime. The newspapers had been all pro-German, where they’d been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, then after making the deal with the British for Palestine, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies’ hands. And they were no good. The Zionists in London sent cables to the US, to Justice Brandeis: “Go to work on President Wilson. We’re getting from England what we want. Now you go to work, and you go to work on President Wilson and get the US into the war.” And that did happen. Shortly after President Woodrow Wilson declared war on Germany.
The power of the Rothschild family was evidenced on 24 Sept 2002 when a helicopter touched down on the lawn of Waddedson Manor, their ancestral home in Buckinghamshire, England. Out of the helicopter strode Warren Buffet, – touted as the second richest man in the World but really a lower ranking player- and Arnold Schwarzenegger (the gropinator), at that time a candidate for the Governorship of California. Also in attendance at this two day meeting of the World’s most powerful businessmen and financiers hosted by Jacob Rothschild were James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank and Nicky Oppenheimer, chairman of De Beers. Arnold went on to secure the governorship of one of the biggest economies on the planet a year later. That he was initiated into the ruling class in the Rothschilds’ English country manor suggests that the centre of gravity of the three hundred trillion dollar cartel is in the U.K. and Europe not the U.S.
A recent article in the London Financial Times indicates why it is impossible to gain an accurate estimate of the wealth of the trillionaire bankers. Discussing the sale of Evelyn Rothschild’s stake in Rothschild Continuation Holdings, it states: …[this] requires agreement on the valuation of privately held assets whose value has never been tested in a public market. Most of these assets are held in a complex network of tax-efficient structures around the World.
Queen Elizabeth II’s shareholdings remain hidden behind Bank of England Nominee accounts. The Guardian newspaper reported in May 2002 … “the reason for the wild variations in valuations of her private wealth can be pinned on the secrecy over her portfolio of share investments. This is because her subjects have no way of knowing through a public register of interests where she, as their head of state, chooses to invest her money. Unlike the members of the Commons and now the Lords, the Queen does not have to annually declare her interests and as a result her subjects cannot question her or know about potential conflicts of interests…” In fact, the Queen even has an extra mechanism to ensure that her investments remain secret – a nominee company called the Bank of England Nominees. It has been available for decades to the entire World’s current heads of state to allow them anonymity when buying shares. Therefore, when a company publishes a share register and the Bank of England Nominees is listed, it is not possible to gauge whether the Queen, President Bush or even Saddam Hussein is the true shareholder.
By this method, the trillionaire masters of the universe remain hidden whilst Forbes magazine poses lower ranking billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett as the richest men in the World. Retired management consultant Gaylon Ross Sr, author of Who’s Who of the Global Elite, has been tipped from a private source that the combined wealth of the Rockefeller family in 1998 was approx (US) $11 trillion and the Rothschilds (U.S.) $100 trillion. However something of an insider’s knowledge of the hidden wealth of the elite is contained in the article, “Will the Dollar and America Fall Down on August 19?..” on page 1 of the 12th July 2001 issue of Russian newspaper Pravda. The newspaper interviewed Tatyana Koryagina, a senior research fellow in the Institute of Macroeconomic Researches subordinated to the Russian Ministry of Economic Development (Minekonom) on the subject of a recent conference concerning the fate of the U.S. economy:
Koryagina: The known history of civilization is merely the visible part of the iceberg. There is a shadow economy, shadow politics and also a shadow history, known to conspirologists. There are [unseen] forces acting in the World, unstoppable for [most powerful] countries and even continents.
Ashley Mote (EU): “Mr President, I wish to draw your attention to the Global Security Fund, set up in the early 1990s under the auspices of Jacob Rothschild. This is a Brussels-based fund and it is no ordinary fund: it does not trade, it is not listed and it has a totally different purpose. It is being used for geopolitical engineering purposes, apparently under the guidance of the intelligence services.” “I have previously asked about the alleged involvement of the European Union’s own intelligence resources in the management of slush funds in offshore accounts, and I still await a reply. To that question I now add another: what are the European Union’s connections to the Global Security Fund and what relationship does it have with European Union institutions? “Recently, Ashley Mote of the European Union (EU) asked this volatile question in a public EU meeting, a question never answered, as Mr. Mote, merely by asking this question, was immediately scratched from the White House Christmas card list and placed on its top ten hit list. The Illuminati’s cash cow, grazing freely on the World wide pasture of greenbacks, isn’t called “Elsie” but instead is called the Global Security Fund, a name actually meaning in the secret cult’s language Global Terrorist Fund. In simple terms, it’s a gigantic illegal trust fund, estimated by undercover overseas financial investigators at 65 trillion dollars, set-up for “Illuminati rainy days” and established when it is desperately needed in a pinch for bribery, assassinations and sponsoring World wide terrorist activities to divert attention from their banking mafia. Although the fund is cloaked in secrecy and made possible by the Western civilization’ s Federal Reserve banking system, investigators trying to pry into the Illuminati’s secret treasure trove have uncovered some interesting facts.
Centurean2\'s Weblog 
FABIANS HAVE A SAYING- SOMETHING LIKE THIS—HIDE STUFF RIGHT UNDER OUR NOSES..
ALL THE STUFF BELOW WAS GATHERED FROM THEIR OWN SITE.
RIGHT UNDER MY NOSE!
Who we are
The Fabian Society has played a central role for more than a century in the development of political ideas and public policy on the left of centre. Analysing the key challenges facing the UK and the rest of the industrialised world in a changing society and global economy, the society’s programme aims to explore the political ideas and the policy reforms which will define progressive politics in the new century.
The society is unique among think-tanks in being a democratically-constituted membership organisation. It is affiliated to the Labour Party but is editorially and organisationally independent. Through its publications, seminars and conferences, the society provides an arena for open-minded public debate.
All Labour Prime Ministers have been members of the Fabian Society, while the Young Fabians have been influential in creating debate and as an arena for young people with an interest in politics to both influence and learn from influential political figures.
Fabian Women
From its beginning the Fabian Society has offered a forum for women to discuss and debate the issues of the day. Well before women won the vote, Fabian women were at the forefront of the arguments for gender equality. Fabian women formed their own group in 1908 and there continues to be a Fabian Women’s Network.
White male haters…
http://www.fabians.org.uk/about-the-fabian-society
120 years of Fabianism
Fabian General Secretary Sunder Katwala introduces the Fabian Thinkers collection by asking what the Fabian Society’s illustrious history means today.
Nobody can know exactly what George Bernard Shaw, HG Wells or Sidney and Beatrice Webb would make of the world of Tony Blair, low-cost airlines and the internet.
But then their Britain seems quite alien to us too. The Britain of 1884 was one in which most working men were denied the vote – along with all women – while wives were merely the property of their husbands. The British empire was at the height of its powers and its eclipse seemed unthinkable. The narrow political battle was between Gladstonian liberalism and Toryism. These must hardly have seemed auspicious circumstances for the small and idealistic group, which met in solicitor Edward Pease’s house in London to form the Fabian Society and declared their ambition to “help in the reconstruction of society in accordance with the highest moral possibilities”.
Yet the Fabians were confident that their ideas could change the world, They were – though they would not have recognised the term – creating the world’s first “thinktank” and surely the most influential in the world of practical politics.
Armed with facts, arguments and political persuasion, the Fabians created a uniquely practical utopianism. It was not just that they were able to “imagine things that never were and ask ‘why not’” (a Shaw soundbite later adopted by Bobby Kennedy). It was also that the Fabians educated and organised to make it happen in practice.
They were first to propose many influential ideas – a national medical service and a welfare state funded by progressive taxation, equal rights for women and decolonisation. In addition to their ideas, publications and lectures, they created a highly impressive institutional legacy to create pressure for these reforms. Fabians advocated for and helped to create the Labour party in 1900. Convinced of the need for evidence-based social science, the Webbs created the London School of Economics, and the New Statesman to provide an outlet for political debate and ideas.
Are these achievements anything more than a historical curiousity today? The fame and enduring reputation of many of the early Fabians could, after all, prove a burden as well as an asset for a thriving contemporary thinktank and political society, which will naturally be judged on its ability to shape the political debates of today and tomorrow, not those of yesterday. The Fabian Society’s central role is to lead debate in defining the future ideas, politics and policies of the left and to show that progressives can win the next battle of political ideas.
Yet, in doing so, we can take inspiration from our roots. After all, what is most striking about the early Fabians is not that they provide a roll call of many of the most eminent thinkers of the Victorian and Edwardian age – the Webbs, Shaw and William Morris, Oscar Wilde, HG Wells, Rubert Brooke, Emmeline Pankhurst and many more – but the extent to which they were prepared to think ahead of the seemingly immutable features of the politics and society of their own times.
Most importantly, they demonstrated that ideas matter in politics. The impact of ideas is often disguised and understated. After all, ideas, however revolutionary when proposed, quickly become part of the political furniture. Yet it is often the battle of ideas – with its intellectual revolutions and counter-revolutions – which reshape the boundaries of what is politically possible at any given time. And it is the ability of governments not just to legislate for their programmes but to shift their political opponents on to new territory which define a lasting political legacy.
The battle of ideas cannot be taken for granted. Few today, especially on the left, would share the early Fabians’ characteristically Victorian certainty in “the inevitability of gradualness”. Rather, today it is common for neo-conservatives and neo-liberals to believe that history is preordained to go their way. Yet this too is disingenuous. Ideas need political champions to succeed. Richard Cockett’s definitive book Thinking the Unthinkable on the rise of the “new right” (a label first applied by a Fabian critique) shows how the neo-liberal counter-revolution was explicitly modelled on the influence of Fabianism, which it sought to to emulate, and counter, through institutions such as the Institute of Economic Affairs.
For political ideas to be effective, they must be constantly rethought. A good Fabian slogan might be “Revisionists revise”. The Fabian ability to influence across political generations has been achieved through the pluralism and diversity of Fabian thinking – a constant rethinking for every political generation what it is to be progressive and on the left. Every time there has been an important renewal of left-of-centre thinking, Fabians have been central to those debates.
So Sidney Webb wrote the Labour Party’s constitution in 1918, including the famous clause 4 commitment to nationalisation. But Fabians also played a central role in the debates which led to the Labour party rewriting its statement of aims and values in 1995 as it sought to escape its years in the electoral wilderness, particularly through Giles Radice’s highly influential Southern Discomfort pamphlets examining what stopped voters disenchanted with the Conservatives switching to Labour. And the time has come to renew again – we must re-examine the founding myths and fears of New Labour as we seek to ensure a radical Labour third term.
As the 12 essays in this collection show, disagreement and debate is built into the fabric of the Fabian approach – underpinned by the lack of any collective Fabian “line” on policy issues. The ideal of open-minded, rational disagreement has not always been achieved in practice – HG Wells stormed out of the Society and lampooned the Webbs in his satire The New Machiavelli while the formation of the SDP created deep divisions a generation ago. And few would claim that Fabians have got everything right – the early Fabian claim that markets were inefficient simply by virtue of being unplanned was clearly a mistake, and the Webbs in particular have been much criticised for their grey statist approach and their naivety, late in life, about the Soviet Union.
But many of the most telling critiques have come from within the Fabian fold. Tony Crosland’s famous claim in The Future of Socialism, easily the most influential book for the postwar left, that “Total abstinence and a good filing system are not now the right sign-posts to the socialist Utopia: or at least, if they are, some of us will fall by the wayside”. And his call for a greater emphasis on “freedom and dissent, on culture, beauty, leisure, and even frivolity” still stands among the most eloquent expressions of an attractive ethical, democratic and participatory vision of what it is to be on the left. The values and ideas of William Morris, RH Tawney, GDH Cole and many others can similarly still influence contemporary political debates too.
A long Fabian history has inevitably contained low as well as high points – the Society’s non-sectarian approach was somewhat out of time with the political mood of both the 1930s and 1970s. Yet we Fabians enter our 13th decade in particularly good health. Two Labour landslides have seen more Fabians returned to the House of Commons than there are Conservatives and Lib Dems MPs put together – their number including Stephen Twigg whose shock defeat of Michael Portillo on election night 1997 meant he had to give up his post as Fabian general secretary.today the membership of the Society is twice what it was 30 years ago and stands at its highest level since Clement Attlee was prime minister. While under previous Labour governments Fabian membership has fallen, it has continued to rise steadily each year since 1997 – just one sign that, for all of the talk of apathy, there is immense interest in politics today, though increasingly often this is taking place outside formal political party structures.
The great questions which will shape the next era of political debate – revitalising democracy and political participation; reshaping the relationship between citizens and the state; making environmentalism central to mainstream politics and creating an effective internationalism which can hold power to political account in a global age – will require new and innovative thinking to create a progressive politics for our own age.
Yet the early Fabians would still find much that was recognisable in our contributions to these debates. The traditions of gradualism remain strong – especially the tactic of breaking political taboos to open up new ground in debates, as with our influential Commissions on Taxation and on the Monarchy. Our next major Commission, to be launched early this year, on Life Chances including setting out a road-map for the Labour government’s ambitious goal of abolishing child poverty by 2020, returns to a perennial Fabian theme of social justice, and indeed contains echoes of the Society’s very first pamphlet, titled Why are the many poor.
Whether they would be, on balance, more encouraged or dismayed by the condition of contemporary Britain, those who founded the Fabian Society in 1884 would perhaps be surprised to find it still going strong 120 years on. In his essay on Sixty Years of Fabianism, George Bernard Shaw, then aged 90, concluded that he must “retire to make room for the Fabians of 60 years hence, by whatever name they will then be called. For the name may perish, but not the species”. We can do no more than commend his thought to the future Fabians of 2064.
http://www.fabians.org.uk/publications/extracts/120-years-of-fabianism
Yet we Fabians enter our 13th decade in particularly good health. Two Labour landslides have seen more Fabians returned to the House of Commons than there are Conservatives and Lib Dems MPs put together – their number including Stephen Twigg whose shock defeat of Michael Portillo on election night 1997 meant he had to give up his post as Fabian general secretary.
DECEPTION- APART FROM USING DECEPTION TO NICK OUR MONEY–THESE FABIANS USE THE TERM LABOUR TO FOOL THE GENERAL PUBLIC–WORKING MANS PARTY–MY ARSE!!
THEIR BEGINNINGS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WORKERS- JUST A MEANS TO SPREAD THEIR SOVIET STYLE COMMIE SHIT!!
Labour Party, UK The main progressive party in Britain since 1918. On 27 February 1900, the Labour Representation Committee was formed in a conference at Memorial Hall, Farringdon Street, London. It was a federation of socialist societies, such as the Independent Labour Party, the Fabian Society, and trade unions. Initially it had only two MPs, but in 1906, partly as the result of an electoral pact with the Liberal Party, it gained 30 seats, and became the Labour Party. Its first leader was Keir Hardie, who was succeeded by Arthur Henderson (1908–10) and George Barnes (1910–11). The prewar high point of support for the Labour Party at a general election was 7.6 per cent in January 1910, and it was concerned to shore up its support in seats won. The party split in 1914, when its leader (since 1911), MacDonald, resigned in opposition to World War I, whilst some of its prominent members, such as Henderson (leader again in 1914–17), supported the war effort.
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Labour+Party
Origins
The Labour party was founded in 1900 after several generations of preparatory trade union politics made possible by the Reform Bills of 1867 and 1884, which enfranchised urban workers. Although the Labour Representation League, organized in 1869, elected parliamentary representatives, they were absorbed into the Liberal party Liberal party, former British political party, the dominant political party in Great Britain for much of the period from the mid-1800s to World War I. . A Marxist organization, the Social Democratic Federation, was founded by H. M. Hyndman Hyndman, Henry Mayers (hīnd`mən), 1842–1921, English Socialist, an early advocate of Marxism in England.
….. Click the link for more information. in 1881; but more important for the history of the Labour party was the founding of the Fabian Society Fabian Society, British socialist society. An outgrowth of the Fellowship of the New Life (founded 1883 under the influence of Thomas Davidson), the society was developed the following year by Frank Podmore and Edward Pease.
….. Click the link for more information. (1883) and the Independent Labour party (ILP; 1893). With the help of the Fabian Society and the Trades Union Congress, the ILP in 1900 set up the Labour Representation Committee, renamed the Labour party in 1906. The new party elected 29 members to Parliament in 1906; in the two elections of 1910 it elected 40 and 42. Its strength lay in the industrial North and in Welsh mining areas; the evolutionary socialism espoused by the Fabians was the dominant ideology.
OLD FABIAN PARTY….TRANSPARENCY….
All Labour Prime Ministers have been members of the Fabian Society, while the Young Fabians have been influential in creating debate and as an arena for young people with an interest in politics to both influence and learn from influential political figures. ALL LABOUR PRIME MINISTERS—ALL!!!
Two Labour landslides have seen more Fabians returned to the House of Commons than there are Conservatives and Lib Dems MPs put together – their number including Stephen Twigg whose shock defeat of Michael Portillo on election night 1997 meant he had to give up his post as Fabian general secretary.
ALL STOOD AS LABOUR CANDIDATES–DECEPTION!!
Lessons from America
To mark Barack Obama’s 100th day in office, the Young Fabians and the Labour Staff Network have released three new publications setting out the most important lessons for UK activists, from America.
In October 2008, 80 members of the Young Fabians and the Labour Staff Network joined Barack Obama’s campaign in the swing state of Ohio, for the final days of one of the most exciting political campaigns in recent history.
The publications below are borne from their first hand experiences on the ground and offer practical suggestions to help reinvigorate Labour Party campaigning in the UK.
http://www.youngfabians.org.uk/content/view/191/5/
RACIST’S TO BOOT!!
To illustrate how reverberant a drum the innocent-sounding locution “natural selection”11 can really be, translated into social practice, try to imagine how denial of black dignities and rights and the corresponding degradation of black family relationships in America because of this denial, might well be reckoned an evolutionarily positive course, in Darwinian terms. By discouraging Negro breeding, eventually the numbers of this most disfavored race would diminish. The state not only had a vested interest in becoming an active agent of evolution, it could not help but become one, willy-nilly. Fabians set out to write a sensible evolutionary agenda when they entered the political arena. Once this biopolitical connection is recognized, the past, present, and future of this seemingly bumbling movement takes on a formidable coherence. Under the dottiness, lovability, intelligence, high social position, and genuine goodness of some of their works, the system held out as humanitarian by Fabians is grotesquely deceptive; in reality, Fabian compassion masks a real aloofness to humanity. It is purely an intellectual project in scientific management.
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/9e.htm
Regulating Lives Like Machinery
The real explanation for this sudden gulf between NEA policies in 1893 and 1911 had nothing to do with intervening feedback from teachers, principals, or superintendents about what schools needed; rather, it signaled titanic forces gathering outside the closed universe of schooling with the intention of altering this nation’s economy, politics, social relationships, future direction, and eventually the terms of its national existence, using schools as instruments in the work.
Schoolmen were never invited to the policy table at which momentous decisions were made. When Ellwood P. Cubberley began tentatively to raise his voice in protest against radical changes being forced upon schools (in his history of education), particularly the sudden enforcement of compulsory attendance laws which brought amazing disruption into the heretofore well-mannered school world, he quickly pulled back without naming the community leaders—as he called them—who gave the actual orders. This evidence of impotence documents the pedagogue status of even the most elevated titans of schooling like Cubberley. You can find this reference and others like it in Public Education in the United States.
Scientific management was about to merge with systematic schooling in the United States; it preferred to steal in silently on little cat’s feet, but nobody ever questioned the right of businessmen to impose a business philosophy to tamper with children’s lives. On the cantilever principle of interlocking directorates pioneered by Morgan interests, scientific school management flowed into other institutional domains of American life, too. According to Taylor, application of mechanical power to production could be generalized into every arena of national life, even to the pulpit, certainly to schools. This would bring about a realization that people’s lives could be regulated very much like machinery, without sentiment. Any expenditure of time and energy demanded rationalization, whether first-grader or coalminer, behavior should be mathematically accounted for following the new statistical procedures of Galton and Karl Pearson.
The scientific management movement was backed by many international bankers and industrialists. In 1905, the vice president of the National City Bank of New York, Frank Vanderlip, made his way to the speaker’s podium at the National Education Association’s annual convention to say:
I am firmly convinced the economic success of Germany can be encompassed in a single word—schoolmaster. From the economic point of view the school system of Germany stands unparalleled.
German schools were psychologically managed, ours must be, too. People of substance stood, they thought, on the verge of an ultimate secret. How to write upon the empty slates of empty children’s minds in the dawning era of scientific management. What they would write there was a program to make dwarf and fractional human beings, people crippled by implanted urges and habits beyond their understanding, men and women who cry out to be managed.
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/9i.htm
THESE GUY’S MAKE HITLER LOOK LIKE A PUSSY CAT!!
THEY SMILE NICELY FLASHING THEIR WHITENED TEETH…………WITH EVIL IN THEIR HEART’S
BANS R US…………….DEVIDE AND CONQUER..
SMOKERS TREATED AKIN TO LEPARS BY NON SMOKERS……….RIGHT?
HOME SCHOOLERS–AH..IT ONLY EFFECTS THEM………….RIGHT?
ON AND ON…
BAN CARS……………SMOKERS WILL LAUGH—SERVE’S YOU DRIVERS RIGHT…
ACTING AKIN TO FASCIST’S WHEN IT CAME TO SMOKERS……………EXPECT THE SAME IN RETURN!
HOW FRESH THE AIR WOULD BE WITHOUT CARS’
NO MORE ROAD KILL.
ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENT’S
ON YER BIKE- MAKE MORE SPACE FOR THE MORE DESERVING ON THE ROADS AND PLANES’
WON’T HAPPEN?
WHO’D HAVE THOUGHT 30 YEARS AGO- WE’D BE TOLD WE COULDN’T SMOKE—WHAT TO EAT…………..HOW MUCH TO DRINK……………………FINED FOR SAYING WHATS’ NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE WESTMINSTER ELITE…………BIN POLICE……….STASI PEOPLE IN ENGLAND OF ALL PLACES……………
THE COUNTRY THAT FOUGHT FASCISM…………..OR DID THEY?
BRAINWASHING OF SCHOOL KIDS..
THIS IS WHAT YOU SHOULD THINK ABOUT IMMIGRATION!!
YES…THATS’ WHAT KIDS ARE TAUGHT———WHAT TO THINK———————NOT HOW!!
EVIL AND DANGEROUS!!
COMRADE BROWNSKI- FABIAN PM!!
we will be agents of change.” By 1989, a senior director of the Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory told the fifty governors of American states that year assembled to discuss government schooling, “What we’re into is total restructuring of society.” It doesn’t get much plainer than that. There is no record of a single governor objecting.
Two years later Gerald Bracey, a leading professional promoter of government schooling, wrote in his annual report to clients: “We must continue to produce an uneducated social class.” Overproduction was the bogey of industrialists in 1900; a century later underproduction made possible by dumbed-down schooling had still to keep that disease in check.
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/2j.htm
Radio is just reporting–GET PISSED GO TO HOSPITAL……….THAT WILL BE £500 PLEASE……….
FABIANS WILL EVENTUALLY LEAVE YOU WITH NOTHING!!
BANKERS STEAL!
Pingback: Latest banking news – Branson News Watch: Virgin Breaks Into Banking