Rothschild – ‘The City’ – World Conquest – “We Own You – We Will Take Everything”

Rothschild – ‘The City’ – World Conquest – “We Own You – We Will Take Everything”

Posted By: Lion
Date: Wednesday, 24-Feb-2010 23:04:23

From a previous post; “Purging The Gene Pool”

“There is no justification or excuse for people of the world tolerate any longer – the purposeful practice of this inept insanity. Stupid is as stupid does.”

“The individuals and organizations referenced below must be tripped up with every step, cut off at every turn, exposed with every opportunity, and thwarted in every action taken, beginning with their satanic front organizations such as the Bank Of International Settlements (BIS), International Monetary Fund (IMF), Club Of Rome, The Committee Of 300, the Central ‘Intelligence’ Agency (CIA), the Council On Foreign Relations, The Tri-Lateral Commission, The Bilderberg Groups, the ‘Federal’ Reserve System, the Internal Revenue Serivce(s), Goldman Sachs, Israel and the Israeli lobby, the Vatican, the City of London, Brussels, the United Nations, the Israeli Mossad, and the primary chosen mouthpiece of the beast, Associated Press (AP).”

“The time has come for the Goyim of the world to rise up, unite, and to purge the gene pool of these workers of darkness who envelop humanity.”

“…Instead of cowering to the aggressors of evil, the Goyim must become the aggressor, and meet the challenge head -on…”

“…Might is only right when the actions of might uplift the human individual. The lower life forms of might the world is experiencing today are only degrading the human condition, and are an insult to common decency, and an insult to all of humanity.”

“These lower forms of life have names. These lower forms of life have faces.”

“They exist only to practice their evil craft in plain sight of humanity, every day…”

Consider the following:

“When we come into our kingdom, our orators will expound great problems which have turned humanity upside down in order to bring it, at the end, under our beneficent rule.”

“Who will ever suspect, then, that all these peoples were stage-managed by us according to a political plan which no one has so much as guessed at in the course of many centuries?”
[End of Protocol #13]

President William Jefferson Clinton Rockefeller, aided by Vice-President Al Gore, spent the entire eight years of his presidency expounding such great problems that have ‘turned humanity upside down’.

Clinton-Gore propounded Environmental Issues such as the ‘global warming’ hoax, Loss of Habitat, Species Extinction, and many other environmental concerns.

However, Bush-Ashcroft seized upon their role in the final push for world government — Global Terrorism.

This mantra continued under President Bush who asserted daily that Global Terrorism has “turned humanity upside down”, when time has proven George W Bush himself to be the real terrorist.

Today, Obama and his handlers are the ‘terrorists of the day’, degrading the lifestyle of humanity, while waging war against sovereign nations worldwide.

The majority of people have no idea they have been “stage-managed” according to a “political plan” which has been ongoing now for over two centuries!

The American Public Educational System has done its dirty job, of graduating citizens who cannot read or write enough to pay attention to what is going on.

Today’s citizens are also not schooled in Critical Thinking Skills, and they do not know enough history to realize the trap into which sick-minded witch doctors are leading us!

On paper, President Bush (and now Obama) have all the dictatorial powers Stalin ever possessed.

The current administration is ‘activating’ these powers as we speak.

When people begin getting knocks on their doors at midnight, with arrest orders signed by Homeland Security, they will know too late they have signed their own death warrant by buying into this madness.

At that time, America’s freedoms and Constitutional guarantees, will be abolished; and all by an administration who waxed hot and heavy rhetorically by saying that “our war on Terrorism cannot be waged at the expense of our liberties” – more doublespeak.

Consider this excerpt about the powerful rhetoric that is supposed to accompany this rush toward dictatorship, in the guise of fighting terror and ‘saving the planet’.

” Moreover, the art of directing masses and individuals by means of cleverly manipulated theory and verbiage, by regulations of life in common, and all sorts of other quirks, in which the [common people] understand nothing, belongs likewise to the specialists of our administrative brain.” [Protocol #4]

I make no apologies for the following statement:

Through The City Of London, the unholy barbarians of the Babylonian and Roman empire’s live on .

The history of the City Of London is the history of evil, and the very reason why the power of “The City” must be destroyed.

If you recall the Biblical account of King Nebuchadnezzar’s rule, he too was a man who deluded himself into believing he was wiser, and stronger than his Creator.

In the blink of an eye, the formerly powerful King Nebuchadnezzar found himself scouring in the fields, and living like the animal he had chosen to be during his reign of power.

Eating grass, on his hands and knees, foraging for his sustenance with a herd of wild swine.



“We are at present working discreetly, but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of the world.

And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands.”

– Arnold Toynbee, Fabian Society – City Of London

The Basis of Local Government

City of London Corporation

The Beginning of Socialism in London

Fabian Society

Fabian Society “Five Year Plan”

Fabian Society Privatization of the World

Communist “Sustainable Development”

World Conservation Bank

Communist “SmartGrowth”

Pauperization of Pensioners and the Middle Class

The modern system of local and regional government can be directly traced back to Babylon, when in King Nebuchadnezzar’s time (605-562 B.C.), the city was divided up into ten distinct regions or districts ruled by princes, under whom were mayoral governors, captains, judges, treasurers, councilors and sheriffs.

In modern times the system of local government that we have throughout the world is derived exclusively from the City of London Corporation.

The City of London Corporation is a Masonic, private, independent, sovereign state occupying approximately
one square mile within the heart of the greater London area inside the old Roman walls of London.

It either directly or indirectly, controls all mayors, councils, regional councils, multi-national and trans-national banks, corporations, judicial systems (through Old Bailey, Temple Bar and the Royal Courts of Justice in London), the IMF, World Bank, Vatican Bank (through N. M. Rothschild & Sons London Italian subsidiary Torlonia), European Central Bank, United States Federal Reserve (which is privately owned and secretly controlled by eight British-controlled shareholding banks), the Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland (which is also British-controlled and oversees all of the Reserve Banks around the world including our own) and last but not least, the communist European Union and communist United Nations Organization.

The Court of leadership consists of the Lord Mayor, 25 Aldermen and 130 Common Councilmen.

All of the giant, largely Jewish international banks and corporations in the City of London that control the world are members of one or another of the Twelve Great Livery Companies domiciled in Guildhall (or the Hall of the City of London Corporation).

As the result of a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ between the sovereign and the City – which merchants and bankers made many hundreds of years ago, the Lord Mayor is officially head of the Corporation and is allowed to operate independently of the sovereign.

However, the wealth of the world held in the Corporation ultimately is the Sovereign’s, because, should the gentleman’s agreement break down, the sovereign has the power to “rescind” the Corporation’s independence.

The Queen sometimes refers to the Corporation as “The Firm.”

The supreme ruler of the City is the Lord Mayor who is elected once a year and lives in the Mansion House.

The City has a resident population of about 5,000 that rises to about two million during the week when people surge in and out each day to work.

The financial center of the world, it is often termed the ‘wealthiest square mile on earth.’

The full title of the Square Mile’s governing body is the ‘Mayor, Aldermen and Commons of the City of London in Common Council Assembled.’

While ostensibly, the power of the monarchy appears to be diminishing as the Queen voluntarily gives her Commonwealth countries their ‘independence’.

They become republics chartered to the United Nations.

As she actively works toward abolishing the sovereignty of Britain, the UK is broken up and divided into regions of the European Union.

Her ‘City of London’ Corporation, her multi-national banks and her multi-national corporations are quietly taking over the world.

Photo: A statue of a heraldic dragon tops the present-day Temple Bar marker in front of the Royal Courts of Justice.

In ancient times the City marshals and sheriffs were employed to ensure that all the “council” rates and taxes were paid to the City on behalf of the king.

After the conquest of William the Conqueror in 1066, who first brought the Jewish bankers to London from France, the Jews developed written credit agreements for the king,

(in French called “mort-gages” mort ‘death’gage ‘bond’) and it was the marshal’s and sheriff’s jobs to ensure that all the interest payments of these “death bonds” were paid to the Jews on behalf of the king.

During the reign of Richard I (the Lionheart) after the serious downturn in the economy as the result of the cost and tax impositions of the Crusades, many farmers, business people and peasants had defaulted on their “mort-gages” throughout England.

(read “Blondel’s Song” by David Boyle to understand how 25% of the wealth of England was required in standard Silver Ingots to free Richard the Lionheart from not Saladdin but the ‘Holy’ Roman Emperor!”)

As the result, the JEWS promptly commenced seizing the commoner’s property for not paying the interest, rates and taxes to the City and King.

Subsequently, a rapid increase in hate against the “King’s Jews” was initiated.

This led to the massacre of Jews at York in 1190.

New York in America was later named by British Jewish immigrant bankers in memory of the event.

For 100 years the commoner’s hate against the “King’s Jews” fermented until 1290, when, under pressure from the people, Edward III finally suspended the Mayoralty and reluctantly banished all Jews from his kingdom.

16,000 Jews left England and didn’t begin to return until around the reign of Elizabeth I. (1558-1603)

This era is when the enormous power of the City really began to accelerate with the opening of the world’s first stock exchange in London and has continued unabated to the present day.

While there have been rare occasions when the Lord Mayor and Commalty of the City, as a result of their colossal wealth and power have been able to subtly out-maneuver the monarch, as to their cost, Richard II, Charles I and James II were to learn to their fate.

Generally speaking this has been the exception rather than the rule.

Ultimately, whoever successfully rules must have the “will” of the people.

Historically, in the City many although certainly not all monarchs, have ruled with the “will” of their subjects.

But rarely, if ever, have the bankers, rich barons or knights been respected in this position.

More often than not they’ve been consistently hated.

Even when monarchs have done a poor job, provided they have still had the “will” of the people, the ‘wealthy bankers’ position has been extremely “perilous” to say the least.

After forty years of misrule by Henry III, the Lord Mayor, Thomas Fitzthomas (1261- 1264) and the Aldermen defied the king.

On this particular occasion the Lord Mayor ended up being thrown into the Tower where he died.

Henry III vetoed nine Mayors in his long reign, and jailed another who died in prison.

On one occasion the threat to the Lord Mayor’s massive wealth and power has not come directly from the monarch, but from the people themselves.

Mayor Nicholas Brembre (1383-1385) had been a king’s man during the peasant’s revolt, and was knighted by Richard II for curbing the ambitions of his uncle, John of Gaunt.

But Brembre had few friends among the common people having deposed the popular Mayor Adam Stable, and when he re-imposed the hated Poll Tax which had caused the revolt, the mob turned on him.

He was given a mockery of a trial and was then hanged, drawn and quartered.

Understandably, therefore, from the time of Richard II most of the “Lord Mayors” in the City of London and others in the realm became very “cautious” and “hesitant” about any proposal which could be seen as an “unreasonable demand” to levy rates or taxes for the City and king.

However, today these events have all but been forgotten. From the time of William the Conqueror in 1066 up to the time of the Reformation the City of London Corporation was Roman Catholic.

(The modern global “company” and “corporate” business system that we know today grew out of the old Roman Catholic dioceses in England which were the world’s first “corporations”).

During the reigns of Henry VIII (1491-1547) and Elizabeth I (1558-1603) when the Church of England, knights and barons took over the assets of the Catholic Church in England, the City then became Protestant.

Gradually, as the people of England apostatized and turned away from the Protestant King James Bible and Christianity in general, both Roman Catholic and Protestant.

In the period beginning in the late 1800’s the City and Monarchy became rabidly Socialist.

The religion of Socialism is based primarily on the teachings of the pagan Greek philosopher and writer Plato, and especially his book The Republic, in which 400 years before the time of Christ he dreamed of a “World Republic” headed not by a president, but by a royal “world philosopher king” or “prince” – like himself of course.

Both Karl Marx and Hitler were great students of Plato. It is only inevitable that the planned reformed United Nations and EU will one day be headed by this “Philosopher Prince”.

Socialism officially first began in 1880 in London when H. M. Hyndman founded the Rose Street Club which was dedicated to the destruction of Christianity in England.

In 1884 the group changed its name and came to be called the Social Democratic Federation.

Its early members deceptively called themselves “Christian Socialists”.

Later the group’s membership included the Jew, Karl Marx’s daughter, Eleanor Marx and her husband Professor Aveling.

Behind the scenes the group was largely controlled by Engels, Karl Marx’s partner.

Because Hyndman would not obey the orders of Engels, Eleanor Marx and her husband split off with William Morris the poet and others and started an opposition group which they called the Socialist League.

On January 4, 1884, members and past members of the Social Democratic Federation, the Socialist League and others founded the Fabian Society.

The first meeting of the Fabian Society was held at the home of Mr. E. R. Pease, a member of the London Stock Exchange.

Two of the leading members were George Bernard Shaw and Sidney Webb.

Other early members were Eleanor Marx, theosophist and occultist Annie Besant, and author H. G. Wells.

The name of the society was suggested by the Spiritualist, Frank Podmore, who named it after the brilliant, elderly, third century Roman general, censor and consul,

Quintus Fabius (Maximus Verrucosus 303-203 BC) who was made a dictator in 221-217 BC and, with his small band of fighting guerrillas and superior cunning, successfully defended Rome by defeating Hannibal’s much bigger and mighty Carthaginian army through “gradualism” and “terrorism” during the time of the second Punic War.

Initially he kept to the hills and cunningly hampered the enemy’s progress by cutting off their food and supply lines with “delaying tactics” until Rome could assemble enough men to defend the city successfully.

During the war, his slow, “gradual,” delaying tactics were greatly disapproved of by his soldiers and the civilians and earned him the name of ‘Cunctator’ the ‘Delayer.’

But later, after the triumph, his skill and wisdom was highly appreciated. He died in his 100th year in 203 BC.

The only difference between Fabian Socialism and Communism is that Communists take your house by directly sending in the “secret police” to knock your front door down.

Fabian Socialists do it much more subtly and cleverly by “gradually” taking your individual rights away, by “gradually” increasing property taxes and rates, and finally, when you can’t pay them, they send in their regional “council tax inspectors” to take your house away but the end result is the same.

Former British PM Tony Blair and President George Bush Junior’s globalist “war on terror” is a classic Fabian Socialist strategy.

The philosophy of the Fabian Society was written in 1887 and included the statement:

“The Fabian Society acknowledges the principal tenet of Marxism the abolition of private property etc.”

(Of course this does not apply to the elect oligarchy at the top who end up owning the lot!).

Fabian Socialism is a “mixture” of Fascism, Nazism, Marxism and Communism all bundled together.

However, it is much more deadly because it is much more clever and subtle.

Sidney and Beatrice Webb published a book of 1143 pages in defense of Bolshevism.

It was entitled Soviet Communism: A New Civilization.

In April 1952 the Webbs were exposed before a US Senate Committee on the judiciary when Soviet Colonel I. M. Bogolepov, a former Red Army officer stated that:

“…the entire text had been prepared by himself in the Soviet Foreign Office…”

Appropriately, the defiant coat of arms of the Fabian Society (commissioned by author/playwright co-founder George Bernard Shaw) today (now archived) is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

Until recently it also appeared on the Fabian glass window (now removed) in the Beatrice Webb House at Dorking, Surrey.

Today the Fabian Society is among other things the intellectual wing of the British Labor Party.

Before the now infamous pedophile, Tony Blair became British Prime Minister in May 1997, he was Chairman of the Fabian Society.

Since the 1997 British general election there have been around 200 Fabian MP’s in the House of Commons, some of whom have formed almost entire Labor Cabinets including:

Gordon Brown, Robin Cook, Jack Straw, David Blunkett, Peter Hain, Patricia Hewitt, John Reid, Ruth Kelly, Alan Milburn and Clare Short.

Now headed by Gordon Brown, Fabians now dominate the entire British government.

They are resident in all parties and sit on all important select committees, commissions and organizations allied to the government.

A good web-site on the subject is:

The Fabian Society literally controls the European Union.

German-born Gisela Stuart, the Labour MP for Birmingham Edgbaston since 1997, and member of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, was one of two House of Commons’ Representatives on the European Convention and a member of the Presidium of the Convention on the Future of Europe.

The Presidium was the drafting body that created the draft Constitution for Europe.

In her book, ‘The Making of Europe’s Constitution’, published in December 2003 by the Fabian Society, p. 20-21, Gisela writes:

“In the early months, the Presidium members would meet in a small room in the Justus Lipsius Building some fifteen minute walk from the European Parliament.”

“Attendance was limited to the thirteen members, the Secretary General Sir John Kerr, his deputy and the press officer. Sir John Kerr, a former Permanent Secretary of the British Foreign Office, conducted the proceedings inside the Presidium and in the plenary sessions of the Convention with deft diplomatic skill as might be expected from someone who John Major called ‘Machiavelli’ in his autobiography.”

The best description of his talents I heard was:
“When Kerr comes up to you and asks for the time, you wonder why me and why now?”

“On several occasions, we would retreat to the Val Duchess a small palace used by the Belgian foreign minister.”

“It was at one of the dinners at Val Duchess that the skeleton of the draft constitution was given to members of the presidium in sealed brown envelopes the weekend before the public presentation.”

“We were not allowed to take the documents away with us.”

“Just precisely who drafted the skeleton, and when, is still unclear to me, but I gather much of the work was done by Valery Giscard d’Estaing and Sir John Kerr over the summer.”

“There was little time for informed discussion, and even less scope for changes to be made.”

There is another important idea, a method more than a principle which becomes closely associated with Fabianism.

Sydney Webb called it ‘permeation.’

Today it would be called ‘consensus.’ Webb put it this way.

“…Most reformers think that all they have to do in a political democracy is to obtain a majority. This is a profound mistake.

What has to be changed is not only the vote that is cast, but also the mental climate in which Parliament and Government both live and work.

That I find to be an accurate description of the approach I and my colleagues have tried to bring to the affairs of the nation in our first term of office…”

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.

The British plan to take over 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 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. At first the society was called ‘Milner’s Kindergarten’, then in 1909 it came to be called The RoundTable.

It was to work closely with the London School of Economics founded in 1894 by Fabian Socialist leader Sidney Webb (Lord Passfield).

Today former Rhodes Scholars (such as Bill Clinton), Fabian Business RoundTable members, and graduates from the London School of Economics -(the primary Fabian Socialist training school in the world)- dominate the global banking, business and political systems in every country.

The British Fabian Society plan to takeover the world by the City of London financial community was first published in a book entitled

“All These Things” by a New Zealand author and journalist, A. N. Field.

The book was first published in 1936 by Omni Publications in the United States (and censored in New Zealand).

The document, called “Freedom and Planning” was secretly circulated in 1932 by the inner councils of the members of the Political Economic Plan, otherwise known as “P.E.P.” in London.

The then chairman of the organization was a City of London Jew, Israel Moses Sieff, who was the reputed author of the plan.

The headquarters of P.E.P. were at 16 Queen Anne’s Gate, London.

Mr Sieff was also chairman and financier of Marks and Spencer’s’ chain stores and vice-president of the British Zionist Society.

Similar to the experiment carried out in the in the USSR, the whole world would eventually be transferred into a Communist “United Nations” World Soviet Socialist Republic, where each country would be “regionalized” and ruled through “Regional Councils” through a United Nations dictatorship called a “Parliamentary Assembly” which would be just another name for a Soviet “Central Committee” and all independent, sovereign, national governments would be totally abolished.

Centred around City of London Jewry’s international financiers in the Bank of England subsidiary, the Bankers Industrial Development Company, the essence of the document “Freedom and Planning” was (and still is) to gradually “Sovietize” the world based on their “Five Year Plan” inaugurated in Moscow in 1927-28 in the Soviet Union.

Basically the plan involved the subtle transfer of the entire productive capacity of each country throughout the world into a series of great “State-owned” departments, which would then be “corporatized”, then “privatized” to City of London Corporation International banks and corporations which they control.

Individual property ownership would be severely restricted, with most of the land, sea, fisheries, rivers, lakes, ports, railways, communications, media, roads, electricity, energy, food, water, waste management, housing, farms, commercial property, schools, hospitals, police, social welfare, Inland Revenue etc. transferred into statutory corporations, companies or land trusts which indirectly would be owned by City of London banks.

The “peasants” would still be allowed to own their own clothes, and small assets like furniture, cars and boats etc., but the main assets of each country would be owned by their multi – national corporations and banks.

In essence the City of London Corporation would become the “One World Earth Corporation” and would privately own the world.

Similar to the experiment carried out in the in the USSR, the whole world would eventually be transferred into a Communist “United Nations” World Soviet Socialist Republic, where each country would be “regionalized” and ruled through “Regional Councils” through a United Nations dictatorship called a “Parliamentary Assembly” which would be just another name for a Soviet style “Central Committee” and all independent, sovereign, national governments would be totally abolished.

As the result of the P.E.P. Plan originally formulated in 1932, right now every country’s “State assets” (owned in trust by the State on behalf of the people) are being frantically “privatized” by City of London-controlled banks and corporations primarily under the directions of two leading Fabian Socialist writers Sir Roger Douglas and John Redwood.

Sir Roger Douglas’s book “Unfinished Business” and John Redwood’s book “Public Enterprise in Crisis” are the primary handbooks being used by central and local government finance ministers and officers all around the world to sell off each nation’s “family silver” and State assets with the more “sensitive” public assets being transferred into Fascist-type Public-Private Partnerships (PPP’s) which are designed to make the public masses and peasantry “think” that they have some degree of control when in reality they have none as the real ownership of the assets are held by the City of London banks and corporations who fund them.

Until relatively recently, John Redwood was head of N. M. Rothschild & Sons London global Overseas Privatization Unit that is coordinating the entire global privatization process.

Sir Roger has been contracted as a consultant by City of London Banks, the World Bank and others to advise on national privatization programs as well.

Fabian Society “Regionalization” of the World through UN and EU Control of Regional and City Councils.

All of the countries in the world currently are being “regionalized”.

Presently, for example, the whole of the United States is being “regionalized” and the EU Committee of the Regions, based in Brussels, is “regionalizing” every country in the European Union.

As the result of this radical “regionalization” process, Britain has now already been effectively abolished, having been divided up into 9 separate regions of the EU, plus Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

This cunning process, which is being “gradually” implemented to destroy the power of the central national government in each country, is commonly referred to as “Devolution” by the Queen and Fabian Society.

Unlike the rest of the autonomous regions in the UK which, like most of the other regions in the EU that have become virtually powerless through their representation in the European Parliament which is now only a “talking shop”, the City of London Corporation as a separate region by itself within the Union – now rules the European Union.

This is because all of the Commissioners are appointed (not elected) to the European Commission by City of London-controlled business leaders and bankers in their respective countries.

Right now throughout the UK all city councils and regional councils are dramatically increasing their rate demand on their constituent’s properties, while at the same time they are quickly expanding their debt levels for unaffordable capital works programs via loans from City of London banks which policies are deliberately intended to prepare for the councils’
“privatization” whilst transferring the local government in each country to “regional councils” which ultimately will become or be controlled by “Regional Parliamentary Assemblies,” identical to the old structure in the former Soviet Union which first regionalized then abolished the national governments before they set up their republican socialist police state.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration in the US is mirroring the ‘privatization'(theft) method in North America. Purposely running up massive amounts of unmanageable debt, and, at the same time, increasing the tax burden on individuals and organizations.

When debt and tax obligations cannot be met, ownership of the enterprise or individual domicile is reverted back to banking interests – which was the intent from the onset.

In 1992 at the “communist” United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, co-chaired by former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev
and N. M. Rothschild-London agent Canadian billionaire Maurice Strong, the UN unveiled a radical environmental philosophical agenda which “inverted” the traditional values reflected in the Bible, Magna Carta and US Constitution (which put man under God at the head of his creation and dominion i.e. a man’s rights were to have superiority over those of animals, fish, plants, trees and forests etc.)

At the Earth Summit in Rio, an old pagan concept was introduced which “inverted” all of our existing, constitutional, democratic, personal and property rights and values espoused by Christianity and transferred them to the environment and the religion of mother-earth Gaia worship.

In this religion, a tree becomes more valuable than a human being. A rare bird more valuable than a hospital.

This United Nations program of action unveiled in Rio was called Agenda 21. It is 300 pages long and is very complex.

Primarily it is designed to be implemented with other radical UN documents such as the Global Biodiversity Assessment (1100 pages), promoted by the UN Conference on Human Settlements, Habitat II.

The first Habitat conference was held in 1974 and specifically identified private property ownership as a threat to the peace and equality of the environment.

It proposed to revolutionize the development of the land and cities of each country under strict “Soviet-style” environmental guidelines, called “Sustainable Development.”

The UN’s communist secret agenda through “environmentalism” and “sustainable development” is very cunning and has deceived a lot of well-meaning people.

Most people genuinely want to protect the environment and ensure that the earth’s resources are “sustainable” for future generations there is no doubt.

But the communist goal of “sustainable development” and “environmentalism” has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the environment or sustainability it is all about abolition of property rights, and ultimately, collectivization of housing and farms under corporate State control.

Under this system, farmers and property owner’s rights would be effectively extinguished and overridden by strict Environmental and Sustainable Development resource consents and laws.

They would be told where they could farm, what “sustainable” land they could “develop,” (sustainable development) what trees they could plant or cut down, what fertilizer if any they could apply, and they would need “consents” and licenses for everything under the sun.

City dwellers would be in the same dire predicament, and have their homes confiscated, or they’d be severely fined, if they cut down a heritage tree, washed their car, boat or dishes using detergent, or used the privatized corporation’s water when they shouldn’t, especially if they were nabbed under their friendly “Neighbourhood Watch Scheme,” which scheme, incidentally, was first implemented in the Soviet Union.

Communist Marxist Socialism is very subtle.

The penalty for cutting a tree down without the appropriate government consent would become worse than murder.

Not only would you have to license your dog, to own a dog you would have to be licensed too.

Farmers would need to be licensed to operate their collectivized farms, spray weeds, care for cattle and drive their tractors under new Soviet-styled “health and safety” laws.

All tradesmen and professional workers would have to be accredited and licensed, as would all Christian pastors and churches, and any other persons or institutions that could be likely to criticize their Soviet bosses.

All potential young parents would need to have a license to have children, and if there was any family genetic weakness of some sort in their state-controlled doctor’s medical records, no license would be given.

In the end you would need a license or permit to take your boat on a lake, take your kid fishing off a wharf, or travel between towns or cities.

In other words full-blown Marxism.

The United Nations policy of “Sustainable Development” introduced in 1992 at the UNCED at Rio de Janeiro, and implemented through Habitat II and the UN World Commission on Environment and Development is taken directly from the USSR Constitution, chapter 2, article 18, which reads:

“In the interests of the present and future generations, the necessary steps are taken in the USSR to protect and make scientific, rational use of the land and its mineral and water resources, and the plant and animal kingdoms to preserve the purity of air and water, ensure reproduction of natural wealth, and improve the human environment.”

Not only was N. M. Rothschild agent, Maurice Strong, Secretary-General of the UN 1992 Rio Earth Summit, he personally worked with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to appoint three of his own
Earth Charter Commissioners to the 12-man advisory panel of the Johannesburg Summit.

In September 1987, the 4th World Wilderness Congress was held in Denver, Colorado, USA, which established the World Conservation Bank.

The congress was setup by none other than London’s (late) Baron Edmond de Rothschild, chairman of Banque Privée Edmond de Rothschild, Geneva, Switzerland, and one of the trustees of the International Wilderness Foundation that sponsored the conference.

Approximately 1500 of the world’s most powerful bankers and leaders attended the congress, which was chaired by Rothschild agent and Canadian multi billionaire, Maurice Strong.

At the congress, Edmond de Rothschild designated eminent financier I. Michael Sweatman to be the first president of the World Conservation Bank.

Sweatman wrote the forward of the banks charter.

Leading insiders of the biggest banks and UN agencies in the world were present, including Maurice Strong “Mr Sustainable,” David Rockefeller head of the ChaseManhattan Bank

“Mr Development” and Mr David Ruckleshaus head of the UN Environmental Protection Agency “Mr Environment” of course!

The World Conservation Bank is destined to become the final World Bank and the “de-coupling mechanism” for City of London parent banks to take over the assets of every country of the world.

The essence of their secret plan is this:

After an orchestrated period of global financial chaos triggered by a major war in the Middle East or man-made state of emergency or natural disaster, in which most of the world’s banks will be deliberately collapsed in the process, (wiping everybody’s savings out in the crash), key City of London banking parent creditors, are going to take over all the “mort-gages” (death-bonds) and assets of the world, and transfer them to the World Conservation Bank.

The plan is very esoteric and cunning, and very difficult for most to understand. Already most government treasury departments are preparing for such an event.

As part of the preparation for this momentous event, all of the world’s individual currencies are to be merged into two or three major currency groups, two of which are the euro and US dollar.

Finally, these currencies are to be replaced with the World Conservation Bank’s new electronic global currency, the “Earth Dollar.”

This new currency is deceptively to be issued against the collateral of 34 percent of the Earth’s surface that is presently being transferred into huge UN Heritage Parks and Conservation areas in every country across the globe, under the crafty deception “Sustainable Development.”

In short, the biggest banking conspiracy and deception ever to face mankind!

George W. Hunt, (95 Camino Basque, Boulder, Colorado 80302, U.S.A.), a US businessman, attended the congress and produced a video about it exposing their wicked and incredibly deceptive plans.

On his video he plays excerpts of key speeches recorded at the congress.

One such speech was made by David Lang, a leading US financier and close personal friend and business partner of Maurice Strong, who said:

“When the auditor finally gets his hands into the balance sheet, I suggest therefore that this be sold not through a democratic process.

That would take too long and devour far too much of the funds to educate the cannon fodder unfortunately which populates the earth.

We have to take an almost elitist program that we can see beyond our swollen bellies and look to the future in time frames and in results which are not easily understood or which can be,

with intellectual honesty, be reduced down to some sort of simplistic definition.”

“CANNON-FODDER!” this is what these leading, arrogant, banking conspirators of the UN “Sustainable Development,” “SmartGrowth,” and World Conservation policies think of the world general population.

THESE are the wicked men that all the millions and millions of naïve local/central government politicians and business leaders throughout the world are now following.

The main business facilitators and organizations of the UN Sustainable Development policies in the Asia-Pacific Region are the Pacific Rim Institute of Sustainable Management, the NZ Business Council for Sustainable Development and the Melbourne-based Sustainable Investment Research Group (SIRIS).

Equity in this group, SIRIS, coincidentally, is held by IOOF Funds Management and broking house JBWere that provide research for N.M. Rothschild & Sons’ Ethical Share Trust based in London.

The 1995 session the United Nations General Assembly passed a number of rules. Rule 61, 62 and 63 gave local government, civil organizations and private citizens the right to participate directly in the development and implementation of these documents.

Directed by the IMF, World Bank, UN, and Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum, the philosophy of “sustainable development” basically says that there are too many people on planet earth and there are not enough resources to go around.

What we need to do is urgently reduce the population, preserve, conserve, and “ration” the remaining resources and that the United Nations is the only body that can do it.

The World Bank already has a huge statistical database on countries and individuals what they produce and what resources they consume, water, energy, food, raw materials, heat, waste, health, social services etc.

If the net figure is a plus, they are considered to be good productive world citizens. If it is a negative, they are in line for liquidation.

These are all basically the same old Socialist/Communist ideas as the “Marxist/Leninist” philosophy and “planned economy” that permeated the old Soviet Union.

In 1992 at Rio, another key “Soviet-styled” strategy proposed by the Agenda 21 Programme of Action from the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED) was “SmartGrowth.”

This agenda can be found in a UN companion book called “Global Biodiversity Assessment” published by Cambridge University Press.

It proposes to model all the cities of the world on the Israel Moses Seif P.E.P plan, and the “planned” economic system of development used by Lenin and Stalin under the old Communist
Soviet system of local government.

The UN “SmartGrowth” legislation in the United States was first passed in the State of Maryland in March 1997.

Since then, it has been gradually introduced by city and district councils all around the world.

Of course, rarely if ever will you hear of the policy coming from a foul brood of UN international bankers.

While virtually all of the general public are oblivious of this fact, usually individual councils will be happy to credit themselves as authors of the plans.

Just as there is a “close relationship” between the remuneration rises of leading local body politicians with the overall level of council rate-rise demand, so there is a “close relationship” between the level of council rate-rise impositions and the financial status of people living in each council ward or constituency.

The Fabian bankers already “own” the properties held by ratepayers with a “mort-gage” on them.

This includes all private homes, farms, businesses and commercial property, local and central government debt.

All young people with student loans and welfare beneficiary groups also come under this category.

By and large – central bankers believe this group is not a worry as they are already under their strict control and firmly in their grip through welfare dependency or mort-gage “death-bond” fealty.

But the one group that Fabian Socialists hate the most are the “freehold” property-owners.

Hence, this group, more often than not, is the “middle class” that is predominantly comprised of middle-aged citizens and more particularly pensioners who are generally the most asset-rich.

As a result of this phenomenon, all global residential property taxation and ratepayer tax policies are now being subtly targeted against these particular groups to confiscate all their properties.

Essentially the Fabian City of London banks envisage this to be achieved through a variety of measures.

Consider this paper a fair warning to all. Having been exposed to the inner workings of world politics and power struggles for
many years, the author wishes to convey to the people of the world that these individuals, although caught up in sickening, delusion of ego, and dreams of world domination, are very serious in their intent, and equally as bent toward the attainment of their goals.

The above described is their plan, which they are moving forward with as you read this line.

It is left up to WE, The People to be even more intent on putting them away – for good.

Hey You…Can You Hear Me?

This paper is written in the public interest, and may be freely reprinted or republished, in full or in part, for profit or not, by whomsoever wishes to use it.

book finder

Fabian influence on  world affairs


Everything could be settled to the satisfaction of all by means of ‘considerate adaptation’ if only workers and capitalists alike understood what needs to be done and how. But since ‘so far’ this has not been achieved, the capitalists are voting for the Conservatives. And the conclusion? Here the poor Fabians come unstuck altogether and even The Decay of Capitalist Civilization turns into a doleful ‘Decay of Fabian Civilization’. ‘Before the great war there seemed to be a substantial measure of consent’, the book recounts, ‘that the present-day social order had to be gradually changed, in the direction of greater equality’ and so on.Whose consent? Where was this consent? — these people take their tiny Fabian anthill for the world. ‘We thought, perhaps wrongly (!) that this characteristic (!) British acquiescence (!) on the part of a limited governing class in the rising claims’ of the people ‘would continue and be extended’ towards a peaceful transformation of society. ‘But after the War everything fell into desuetude: the conditions of existence worsened for the workers, we are threatened with the reestablishment of the veto power of the House of Lords, with the particular object of resisting further concessions to the workers’ and so on. What follows from all this? In the hopeless quest for a conclusion the Webbs have written their little book. Its closing lines are as follows: ‘In an attempt, possibly vain, to make the parties understand their problems and each other better … we offer this little book.’ This is excellent: ‘a little book’ as a means of reconciling the proletariat with the bourgeoisie! To sum up.. before the war there ‘seemed’ to be consent that the existing system should be changed for the better; however there was not complete agreement on the nature of the change: the capitalists stood for private property, the workers against it; after the war the objective situation worsened and the political differences sharpened yet more: therefore the Webbs write a little book in the hope of bending both sides towards a reconciliation; but this hope is ‘possibly vain’. Yes, it possibly, very possibly is vain. These honourable Webbs who believe so much in the force of persuasion ought in our view, in the interests of ‘gradualness’, to have set themselves a simpler task, like, for example, that of persuading certain highly-placed Christian scoundrels to renounce their monopoly of the opium trade and their poisoning of millions of people in the East.Poor, wretched, feeble-minded Fabianism — how disgusting its mental contortions are!To attempt to turn over other philosophical varieties of Fabianism would be a futile task, since for these people ‘freedom of opinion’ reigns only in the sense that each of the leaders has his own philosophy — which ultimately consists of the same reactionary elements of Conservatism, Liberalism and Protestantism but in differing combinations. We were all surprised when, not so long ago, Bernard Shaw — such a witty writer! — informed us that Marx had long ago been superseded by Wells’s great work on universal history.[7]Such discoveries, so surprising to all mankind, can be explained by the fact that the Fabians form, in a theoretical respect, an exceedingly cloistered little world, deeply provincial, despite the fact that they live in London. Their philosophical inventions are necessary neither to the Conservatives nor to the Liberals. Even less are they necessary to the working class, for whom they provide nothing and explain nothing. These works in the final reckoning serve merely to explain to the Fabians themselves why Fabianism exists in the world. Along with theological literature this is possibly the most useless, and certainly the most boring, type of literary activity.In various spheres of life in Britain today the men of the ‘Victorian era’ (i.e. public figures of the time of Queen Victoria) are spoken of with a certain contempt. Everything in Britain has moved on since that time but possibly the Fabian type has been the best preserved. The vulgarly optimistic Victorian epoch, when it seemed that tomorrow would be a little bit better than today and the day after that a bit better than tomorrow, has found its most finished expression in the Webbs, Snowden, MacDonald and the other Fabians. That is why they seem to be such clumsy and unnecessary survivals from an epoch that has suffered a final and irrevocable collapse. It can without exaggeration be said that the Fabian Society, which was founded in 1884 with the object of ‘arousing the social conscience’, is nowadays the most reactionary grouping in Great Britain. Neither the Conservative clubs, nor Oxford University, nor the English bishops and other priestly institutions can stand comparison with the Fabians. For all these are institutions of the enemy classes and the revolutionary movement of the proletariat will inevitably burst the dam they form. But the proletariat itself is restrained by precisely its own top leading layer, i.e. the Fabian politicians and their yes-men. These pompous authorities, pedants and haughty, high-falutin’cowards are systematically poisoning the labour movement, clouding the consciousness of the proletariat and paralysing its will. It is only thanks to them that Toryism, Liberalism, the Church, the monarchy, the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie continue to survive and even suppose themselves to be firmly in the saddle. The Fabians, the ILPers and the conservative trade union bureaucrats today represent the most counterrevolutionary force in Great Britain, and possibly in the present stage of development, in the whole world. Overthrowing the Fabians means liberating the revolutionary energy of the British proletariat, winning the British stronghold of reaction for socialism, liberating India and Egypt, and giving a powerful impetus to the movement and development of the peoples of the East. Renouncing violence, the Fabians believe only in the power of the ‘idea’. If a wholesome grain can be sifted out of this trivial and hypocritical philosophy then it lies in the fact that no regime can maintain itself by violence alone. This applies equally to the regime of British imperialism. In a country where the overwhelming majority of the population consists of proletarians the governing Conservative-Liberal imperialist clique would not be able to last a single day if it were not for the fact that the means of violence in its hands are reinforced, supplemented and disguised by pseudo-socialist ideas that ensnare and break up the proletariat.The French ‘enlighteners’ of the 18th century[8] saw their main enemy as Catholicism, clericalism and the priesthood, and considered that they had to strangle this reptile before they could move forward. They were right in the sense that it was this very priesthood, an organized regime of superstition, the Catholic spiritual police apparatus, that stood in the way of bourgeois society, retarding the development of science, art, political ideas and economics. Fabianism, MacDonaldism and pacifism today play the same role in relation to the historical movement of the proletariat. They are the main prop of British imperialism and of the European, if not the world bourgeoisie. Workers must at all costs be shown these self-satisfied pedants, drivelling eclectics, sentimental careerists and liveried footmen of the bourgeoisie in their true colours. To show them up for what they are means to discredit them beyond repair. To discredit them means rendering a supreme service to historical progress. The day that the British proletariat cleanses itself of the spiritual abomination of Fabianism, mankind, especially in Europe, will increase its stature by a head.


1 See Marx, Capital, Volume 1 (Moscow 1965), pp. 729-30, which includes the following passage about the Duchess of Sutherland’s tenants: ‘From 1814 to 1820 there 15,000 inhabitants, about 3,000 families, were systematically, hunted and rooted out. All their villages were destroyed and burnt, and their fields turned into pasturage. British soldiers enforced this eviction and came to blows with the inhabitants. One old woman was burnt to death in the flames of her hut, which she refused to leave.’2 Established in 1893, the ILP aimed at securing Parliamentary and local government representation for the workers on the basis of reformist political aims. It played an important role in the establishment of the Labour Representation Committee in 1900 and provided its main political life until constituency organizations of the Labour Party were firmly established in 1918. After this it put forward policies within the Labour Party opposed to the right-wing and eventually broke from it altogether in 1931. It then dwindled into centrist isolation, nevertheless providing an important focus for some debates on socialist strategy in the 1930s. [In the 30s it was one area in which Trotskyists operated. See Bornstein & Richardson, Against the Stream. Note by ERC.]3 The alliance of France, Russia and Britain that fought the Central Powers of Germany and Austria-Hungary in the First World War. The Entente was later joined by Italy, Rumania, Portugal and the United States.4 The break of Christianity from the power of the Papacy and some of its doctrines began with the work of Martin Luther (q.v., n.51) and was developed later by the Calvinists (q.v., n.22) among others. In Britain it was initiated by a political quarrel between Henry V111 and the Pope in the 1520s and developed by the expropriation of the monasteries in the following period and the establishment of a new, national Anglican Church.5 Karl Kautsky (1854-1938) was one of the leading theoreticians of the German Social Democratic Party and the Second International. By the outbreak of the First World War he had abandoned revolutionary Marxism and took up an indecisive position between revolutionary opposition to the war and patriotic support for the German bourgeoisie. As such he became the theorist of ‘centrism’ in the socialist movement and strongly opposed the Russian Revolution.6 The Erfurt Programme of the German Social -Democratic Party was drafted by Kautsky in 1891 and, revised according to Engels’ criticism, was adopted as the official programme of the party and formed the model for the programme of the Russian and other Social-Democratic parties. 7 I must confess that until Bemard Shaw’s letter I had not even known of the existence of this book. Afterwards I acquainted myself with it — I cannot in good conscience say read it because an acquaintance with two or three chapters was quite enough to stop me wasting any more time. Imagine a complete absence of method, of historical perspective, of understanding of the interdependence of the different facets of social life, and of scientific discipline in general and then imagine a ‘historian’ burdened with these qualities roaming far and wide over the history of a few millenia with the carefree air of a man taking his Sunday stroll. Then you will have Wells’s book, which is to replace the Marxist school. L.D.T. 8 The eighteenth century philosophers and writers like Voltaire, Diderot, Montesquieu, Rousseau and others who anticipated the French bourgeois revolution in their ideological opposition to superstition and prejudice and propounded a materialist view of man and an idealist conception of the history of society.

Return to Contents Page for Trotsky on Britain


 1923 the Webbs published a book, The Decay of Capitalist Civilization. The book represents in essence a partly diluted and partly renovated paraphrase of Kautsky’s[5] old commentaries on the Erfurt Programme.[6] Yet in The Decay of Capitalist Civilization the political tendency of Fabianism is expressed in its full hopelessness, and in this case semi-consciously. That the capitalist system must be changed, say the Webbs, there can be no doubt (to whom?). But the whole question is how it shall be changed. ‘It may by considerate adaptation be made to pass gradually and peacefully into a new form’. For this just one small thing is needed: good will from both sides. ‘Unfortunately’, our honourable authors relate, agreement cannot be reached with regard to how to change the capitalist system for ‘many’ consider that the destruction of private property is tantamount to halting the rotation of the earth about its axis, ‘but they misunderstand the position’. There now, how unfortunate!




Choose a language to translate this page!

Select to languageChinese-simpChinese-tradDutchFrenchGermanGreekItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanish



British Revisionism and the Fabian Society
Niki Raapana

What is the Fabian Society?

The Fabian Society was created in 1884 after a suicide note left by Derby Fabian Henry Hutchinson also left 10,000 British pounds to the Fabians “for propaganda and other purposes.” British Fabian socialism was created to promote international communism and free trade with a friendlier face. Unlike Marx’s open and violent revolutionary agenda, the Fabian’s agenda was to quietly infiltrate and re-direct established governments. The Fabians were instrumental in creating the Peace Movement, which is the perfect antithesis to violent expansionism. Fabians also helped establish the International Court at the Hague. The Fabians designed the first League of Nations (the precursor to the United Nations). Fabian influence on the creation of the U.N. is no secret, either. While many Marxist revolutions followed the prescription for violence (Russia, China, Cuba, etc.) others, like the U.S., were infiltrated under the Fabian model for “universal brotherhood and peace.” Today the Fabian socialist model dominates in all global political movements.

Like the imperial goal, the ultimate goal of communism and socialism was to control world trade. The Fabians began infiltrating the U.S. as early as 1898. Emma Goldman represented herself as a Fabian socialist although she openly supported anarchist violence and her influence on McKinely’s assassin in 1901 is part of known history. Goldman was deported to the USSR, but many other Fabians remained behind to do the work. By the time President Woodrow Wilson took the U.S. into WWI, the Fabians were in key positions. These key Fabians drafted the first League of Nations. As more and more Fabian agents secured high-level government positions, and other quiet organizations became high-level advisers (like the Council on Foreign Relations), the original history of the United States underwent a profound change. For over one hundred years the original U.S. system was slowly rebuilt to accomodate the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto. And, the less Americans knew about the changes, the better for all concerned.

The founder of American communitarianism, Dr. Amitai Etzioni, is a Fabian. His latest book, From Empire to Community: A New Approach to International Relations outlines the Fabian’s goals for creating a stronger global government. The “new” Fabian idea for a global justice system is to combine the strength of the U.S. Imperial Army with the principles of the International Court. The ultimate goal is to establish a valid U.N. military allowed to enforce international U.N. law against “insurgents.”

The U.N. replaced the U.S. Bill of Rights with a Declaration of Human Rights after WWII. Human rights are not the same as individual liberty, just as the freemason phrase “liberty, equality, fraternity” is not the same as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Fabian and freemason propaganda both twist things to sound almost the same, but after a brief investigation anyone with eyes can see there are major differences. The power of propaganda is in teaching phony phrases and slogans and turning it into familiar repetitions. (Way too many Americans say, “I got my human rights and they can’t never take that away.”)

The localized Communitarian “approach” shifts the focus from legitimate constitutional governments to a new form of governance, called “community government.” The Fabians plan to rule American neighborhoods based on the Soviet and Chinese models for totalitarian communities. In their skewed world view it is acceptable and okay to lie and sneak new fascist systems into formerly free countries, because ultimately it will create a lovely Utopian paradise on Mother Earth.

Their key phrases are “global security,” “human rights,” “hummanitarian,” “social justice,” and “peace.” You will never hear a Fabian defend legitimate national law based in the U.S. Bill of Rights. They call individual liberty and freedom “old-fashioned” and “outdated.” Fabian propagandists distort reality. Their goal is to confuse and manipulate free people into giving up their freedom for world peace and security. Fabians say the American principles for freedom must be balanced in order to “save the planet” and “stop global terrorism.” (They never admit they’re the terrorists.)

Fabianism is elite training in socialist propaganda. Fabian followers are called “agents for change.” Fabian facilitators are installed in every government agency in the world, and they influence all mainstream media outlets. They are the reason Americans never hear about communitarianism or Local Agenda 21.

The propaganda campaign to convince Americans the United Nations’ International Criminal Court is a valid authority has begun in earnest. For a good example of how Fabian propaganda is utilized by Hollywood, see the movie “The Interpreter” starring Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn. This movie never tells us about the Fabian definition of “human rights.” It never once mentions the laws and programs limiting private property rights already enforced on U.S. soil. Fabian rhetoric never discusses the real programs and laws. Fabians only speak of lofty, vague communist ideals like “peace” and “equality.” Listen closely to the movie’s closing comments about the ICC.

Where did the Fabians originate?

In 1847 The London Communist League was a small group of elite imperialists who worked out an innovative way to regain and maintain control of the world. In 1776 the American colonials had successfully used common sense and an armed civilian popualation to take control of their own property, markets, and labor. The Americans won their independence and freedom from Imperialist control with logic and gunpowder. So, the defeated (but never dismantled) British Empire moved into the Middle East and Africa where they conquered many new territories. The legacy of British Imperial policies lingers to this day in scores of violent crises from South Africa to Iraq to Palestine. The British and Dutch Empires controlled the global drug trade (poppies) between India and China. The British Empire created Israel out of their Mandate for Palestine. British “lords” ruled South Africa and established the policy of apartheid. Iraq won their independence from Great Britian in 1925. Today there are still 16 colonies in the 50 countries that make up the British “Commonwealth.”

Private property rights was not only the basis for the American Revolution, but it was also the basis for many revolutions against the Empires of the world, including France, Russia, Portugul, Spain, Netherlands, the Ottoman and more. Unable to beat the American “idea” of freedom with logic or common sense, Karl Marx was hired by the London Communist League to add revolutionary flair to the confusing and unsubstantiated formula called the Hegelian dialectic. Their idea was to turn American logic and common sense into senseless mumbo-jumbo. The Americans said private property rights for the comman man were the basis for his freedom, so the crafty London Communists said private property rights were the basis for his slavery.

The Communist-Imperialists infiltrated every national revolution based on the American idea. They successfully ruined the French Revolution in 1789 with the assistance of Jacobin agents of change. From that point forward they undermined every legitimate revolution against imperialism. They called their central government a “dictatorship of the proletariat.” The 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto outlined the blueprint for creating a one-world government under a dictatorship of the proletariat using violence and later, propaganda.

For fifty years they instigated violent revolutions against governments that protected the owners of private property. They expanded their tactics from murder and mayhem to sneaky infiltration and practiced deceit in 1894. Spartacus gives a nice overview of the Fabians: “The Fabians believed that capitalism had created an unjust and inefficient society. They agreed that the ultimate aim of the group should be to reconstruct ‘society in accordance with the highest moral possibilities’. The Fabians rejected the revolutionary socialism of H. M. Hyndman and the Social Democratic Federation and were concerned with helping society to move to a socialist society ‘as painless and effective as possible’.” (The “highest moral possibilities” is the same mantra used by Dr. Etzioni and his “moral” communitarians.)

The Society expanded under Beatrice and Sidney Webb, founders of the London School of Economics. George Bernard Shaw became one of the first members of the London Fabian Society. His biographers describe Fabian socialism like this: “..The difference from other organizations of the sort was that they were to do it not through revolution, as Marx advised, but by systematic, progressive legislation, enhanced by persuasion and mass education.. He favored gradualism over revolution and in a pamphlet he wrote in 1897 he predicted that: socialism will come by prosaic installments of public regulation and public administration, enacted by ordinary governments.”

The Fabian Society and their London School of Economics promoted the American base of operations with the Harvard Socialist Club.

Today the British Fabians lead the world toward the Ultimate Third Way. American presidents are educated at elite British univeristies on scholarships provided by British conquerors (Cecil Rhodes-Rhodesia). And what about their partners in the heroin trade between India and China? Well just because a member of the Dutch Royal family was once a Nazi, don’t you know the Dutch are more moral now? The International Court of Justice is at the Dutch Imperial Palace at The Hague.



Reluctance to teach history of empire should end, say MPs and historians

A reluctance to teach British history, and the rise and fall of the British Empire, must be overcome so that the history and citizenship curriculum can explain how we became the nation we are today, argue leading MPs and historians in the Fabian Review Britishness Issue (published on Tuesday 20th December 2005).

The reform proposals are being considered as Education Ministers and officials review the history curriculum and will be debated by leading historians at a major Fabian Future of Britishness conference on January 14th to be headlined by Gordon Brown. A conference panel ‘History lessons: who do we think we were’ will see Gordon Marsden debate his proposals with Tristram Hunt, Paul Gilroy, Humayan Ansari and Francesca Klug.

School history fails to reflect the ‘growing public appetite for history and heritage’ says Gordon Marsden, MP for Blackpool South and a member of the Education Select Committee setting out proposals for reform. John Denham MP, Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, writes that ‘telling the story of empire as fact rather than good or bad thing has an important role to play. A greater honesty about our migrant history would bring surprising unity among those who currently see themselves as divided between the naturally British and others’, while leading historian Linda Colley says that the immense popularity of TV history shows not just an intense curiosity but also people’s ‘sense of deprivation’, because the way history is currently taught in schools gives them ‘a very uncertain sense of the past’. Colley also says that ‘both main political parties caricature the past’ and that ‘New Labour’s tendency to see history as the enemy and to confuse interest in history with being old fashioned and reactionary’ must be replaced by recognising that a confident, modern Britain needs a informed sense of its past.

What needs to change? Problems with how we teach history and citizenship

‘Yo Sushi’ experience of history from curriculum of unconnected modules

‘A central problem is the structuring of history courses around an often unconnected set of narrowly drawn modules, which can last as little as six weeks on some A-level courses. This risks offering a ‘Yo Sushi’ experience of historical understanding – with students gobbling up titbits as they come round on the module conveyor belt but able to make little connection to the broader picture once the dishes have done the rounds’, writes Marsden.

Wariness of teaching British history contributes to ‘Hitlerisation’ of history

Marsden says that overconcentration on the Third Reich in school history has been is in part due to a fear that teaching British history will prove divisive: ‘We also need to acknowledge, and overcome, a certain wariness about teaching British history. While the school history focus on the ‘Great Dictators’ can convey important moral lessons about citizenship and human rights, teaching a rounded history of the rise and fall of Britain’s empire has often been regarded as too tricky, complex or divisive in our multi-ethnic classrooms – despite the important themes and links it offers’.

Lack of historical content risks ‘hobbling potential’ of citizenship education

Marsden welcomes the inclusion of citizenship studies as a major step forward, but warns that ‘If we want citizenship to play an important role in our schools, we must admit that we haven’t got it right yet …. I fear we risk hobbling the potential of citizenship education. Its lack of prescribed historical content and the failure so far to ring-fence time for it could make this a major missed opportunity’ Reform proposals: ‘Strong emerging consensus among history professionals’.

Marsden, who is a former editor of History Today, has been convening an informal advisory group to make recommendations about the history curriculum to Education Ministers and officials as part of the post-Tomlinson report review of 14-19 education. Marsden says there is ‘a strong emerging consensus among history professionals’ for change and calls for a broader public debate about ‘the history that we think we should know and share’.

He proposes:

  • A broader span of British history to be taught as a central component of how we got where are today, reducing the number of modules and the ‘yo sushi’ effect.
  • Overcome wariness about teaching British history, especially the rise and fall of Britain’s Empire, to rebalance school history focus on the ‘Great Dictators’.
  • Closer links between school and university teachers.
  • Public ‘History Oscars’ to celebrate the most imaginative use of archives, museums, oral history and heritage sites, and the best outreach with schools and the public.

Quotes from the Fabian Review Britishness Issue:

“This new British history will be quite different from the old national story of the imperial pink on the map. We can now see that history from all sides and see how it made us who we are today. This is the new global national story we need to share today. For only through Britons honestly examining their more complex and muddled past will the crucial lynch-pins necessary to make EM Forster’s ‘Only Connect’ a reality”

—Gordon Marsden MP

“We need to learn to tell our history so that it explains why so many people have roots in other parts of the world. Telling the story of empire as fact rather than good or bad thing has an important role to play. A greater honesty about our migrant history would bring surprising unity among those who currently see themselves as divided between the naturally British and others”

—John Denham MP

“The enormous popularity of history programmes on television, as well as indicating people’s intense curiosity about the past, also shows a sense of deprivation on their part. History is not as much part of the national curriculum as it should be so people are growing up with a very uncertain sense of the past. Particularly at a time of intense change, people want a sense of roots’. Colley says ‘both main political parties caricature the past’. Conservatives claim that Britain (often meaning England) has always been a conservative country and aloof from Europe and Labour can ‘over-react and seem to think that we should abandon the past entirely’:’Part of the problem stemmed from New Labour’s tendency to see history as the enemy … There was a tendency to confuse interest in history with being old fashioned and reactionary. Yet it is perfectly possible to have a modern society that is aware of its past not in a retrograde, nostalgic way but in a way that makes people feel more secure and more aware of who they are”

—Linda Colley, leading historian of Britishness


In making “quantity and quality of populations” central to his proposed new academic discipline, Beveridge was acknowledging what had now become a matter of general, and not merely eugenic concern: the problem of differential fertility. Nor was this concern confined to those on the political “right”. Beveridge’s own Chairman of Governors at LSE, Sidney Webb, speaking for the Fabian Society, had told the National Birth Rate Commission in 1917 that rates and taxes fell most heavily upon the classes who should have most children but presented no impediment to “the thriftless and irresponsible, the reckless and short-sighted of all grades” with the result that “the community now breeds fastest from its least desirable stocks” (8). And Karl Pearson, a Fabian with Marxist economic leanings, claimed that the most fertile sector of the population produced fifty per cent of the next generation (9). The much delayed publication, in 1923, of the results of the 1911 Fertility of Marriage Census showed that, despite increasing resort to birth control by successive marriage cohorts since 1870, there was a persisting social class differential in birth rates. The problem was now officially recognised. It was also set to music. “There’s nothing surer”, ran the lyrics of one of the most popular songs of the early 1920s, “The rich get richer and the poor get – children” (10).


“No others have done so much to bring about world government as we Americans and British have.” Clarence K. Streit, Union Now With Britain.


I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.”

Bertrand Russell [26]

Since January, the world’s eyes have focused on the United States’ new president, Barack Obama.

This is understandable. Obama’s charisma and electioneering slogan of “change” ignited imaginations in America and around the globe. And now “change” is happening; instead of Big Government it’s Even Bigger Government, and instead of unmanageable debt levels its incomprehensible debt levels. In world affairs President Obama has taken a decidedly international-friendly approach. Even so, Barack is the new man on the block, and his public endorsement of global governance – while real and documentable[

2] – is relatively mild compared to his fellow traveler across the Big Pond. So far…  If anyone has been a trumpeter for global change, it’s England’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Since taking office in 2007, Mr. Brown has incessantly called for a new internationalism. Listening to his speeches, it appears that the Prime Minister is more interested in supporting an empowered United Nations and European super-state, rather than advancing an independent, free, and prosperous Britain.

But does this really matter, especially to those outside of the United Kingdom?

For those living in England and the other European nations – and to a lesser extent the Commonwealth countries – Mr. Brown’s position is understood: It’s the desire to birth a successful “socialist international.” However, for those residing in the United States, Gordon Brown’s name means little. After all, why should someone in Cleveland care what the Prime Minster of England says or supports?

Because the world is a much bigger place then CNN and Fox News, and England

is a global leader, exerting enormous influence through its roles in the United Nations and NATO, and it’s ongoing leadership in the Commonwealth of Nations (a grouping of 53 member countries). Furthermore, it’s a major holder of US treasury securities (American debt). In fact, the United Kingdom is currently the seventh largest holder of US securities (the ten biggest holders in descending order are China, Japan, Caribbean Banking Centers, Oil exporting countries – OPEC, Brazil, Russia, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, and Taiwan).[3] Yet this pales in comparison to the role Great Britain has played as an historical driver during the past one hundred-plus years; Few other countries have fashioned the present global landscape like the British have.4  

And now UK leadership is attempting to forge a path through the global economic storm. In this respect the nation holds the 2009 Chair for the Group of 20, a conglomerate of financial ministers and central bank governors from the twenty most important industrialized and developing countries. This is the principal vehicle being used to guide us through the economic hurricane, and how the world will function on the other side will reflect the G20’s vision.

So does England matter to residents of Cleveland, or anyplace else beyond the United Kingdom? It has in the past, it does today, and it will matter even more in the future. Global solutions are needed, or so we are told, to fix global problems. The headman at Number 10 Downing Street, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, firmly believes this. Moreover, he sees the crisis as an opportunity to introduce world change.

Today, his voice can be heard from the halls of the European Parliament where he recently called for the creation of a “truly global society,”

[5] to the floor of the US Congress where he proclaimed that “we should seize the moment, because never before have I seen a world so willing to come together.” Like a broken record he reminded Congress that “the new shared truth is that global problems need global solutions.”[6] In a perfect “Mr. Brown World,” how would this look? A clue was tossed out at the 2009 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland (January 30, “Reviving Economic Growth” session). During the discussion, the moderator asked PM Brown a thinly veiled question focusing on the need for world government. The Prime Minister responded with a thinly veiled promotion of world government.



“Prime Minister Brown, you’ve talked a lot about the need for better global governance, but the problem often is that countries don’t want to give up their sovereignty…. How can you have a global governance without global, supranational bodies that then are resented by people in your country and in mine, the United States? There’s a great suspicion of these organizations like the WTO [World Trade Organization] or the EU [European Union] anyway. Is the answer here to create more of them?”

Gordon Brown


: “…you’ve got global capital markets, you’ve got global financial flows, but you’ve only got national supervisors. And it cannot work when you’ve got cross-border activities and nobody quite knows what’s happening. And then you find in a crisis, of course, that you’ve got a bank or a financial institution that is international for all its life until it finds itself in crisis, and then the only lifeline is actually national, not international. So I think people are realizing that the international cooperation that we’re talking about is essential. You’re in a global financial system, how do you ever believe that you could solve global financial crisis without having a degree of global cooperation? It seems to me absolutely obvious. The problem is that our institutions were built in the 1940s for sheltered economies, for limited competition, for national – not global – flows of capital. So we’ve got to rebuild these institutions…

That is the problem; that we haven’t got international institutions that are working well enough, even when we’re part of a global economy that everybody knows is now global and should never be anything other than global in the future. And if we don’t act, protectionist tendencies will become paramount and we will have failed in this first stage of building a new global era which I hope will end with a global economy becoming a truly global society.”

Grand Designs for a Global Society

Gordon Brown’s ideas are not unique to him. England, like America, has a long history of world government aspirations. Clarence Streit, an early advocate of a federal Atlantic Union and later a lobbyist for NATO reformation, testified to this fact in his 1941 book Union Now With Britain.

“America and Britain have each been the world’s outstanding supporters of both local and general government. No other people has proved quite so parochially-minded as each of them has been. No others have done so much to bring about world government as we Americans and British have.”


Over the decades American-based global leadership has included President Woodrow Wilson (creator of the League of Nations), Samuel Gompers (the International Labor Organization), Elihu Root (the World Court), Owen Young (the World Bank), and Presidents Roosevelt and Truman (the United Nations). Commenting on these earlier institutions, Clarence Streit noted the essential role of England.

“In fairness, we must also admit that it was mainly British support that enabled every one of those four invaluable experiments in world government – League, Court, Labor Organization, and Bank – to be made real, and not left on paper.”

[8]  Although it’s impossible to document the scope of British world-government activities within the space of a single article, an examination of some key individuals will suffice in demonstrating the historical breadth of “international thinking” within the UK.

Why is this important? Because understanding the foundation gives us an important observation platform into Gordon Brown’s vision of a “global society.” And as today’s leading global government advocate – more so than President Obama, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and arguably more than UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon – Mr. Brown’s grand de

signs would see all of us operating under a socialist system of world management.

Let’s take a very brief look at three historical figures from Britain, and their quest for a new global society.

1. H.G. Wells: The author of such classics as The Time Machine (1895), The Island of Dr. Moreau (1895), The Invisible Man (1897), and The War of the Worlds (1898) – Mr. Wells was greatly interested in the “fate of human society” and believed that human management should be approached with a degree of “science.” In 1925, Wells published a series of articles in a volume titled

A Year of Prophesying, in which he called for a one-world economic and political system; “I am for world-control of production and of trade and transport, for a world coinage, and the confederation of mankind. I am for the super-State…”


Keep in mind that this was during the time of the League of Nations, the first major experiment in trans-national cooperation. But H.G. Wells was not satisfied with the League. In his mind the League’s ultimate vision was being squandered.

“I am hostile to the present League of Nations because I desire the Confederation of Mankind. I do not think that the obstructive possibilities of the existing League of Nations are sufficiently understood by liberal-minded people throughout the world. I do not think they realize how effectively it may be used as a consumer and waster of the creative energy that would otherwise carry us forward towards World Confederation.

“The League of Nations that we saw in our visions in those distressful and yet creative years, 1917-1918, was to have been a real step forward in human affairs… The League we desired was to have been the first loose conference that would have ended in a federal government for the whole earth.”

[10]His approach towards the accepted sovereignty of the nation state was also antagonistic,

“The world is a patchwork of various sized internment camps called Independent Sovereign States…But a day will come… when the only passports in the world will be found alongside of Aztec idols and instruments of torture and such like relics of superstition in our historical museums.”

[11]Wells believed in and worked towards an “Open Conspiracy” of world revolution. In 1928 he published a book titled Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution, in which he claimed that a world revolution would usher in a global super-government. To Wells’ this was “the
truth and the way of salvation.”

[12]Consider the following excerpt from Open Conspiracy. Does it sound like today?

“The character of the Open Conspiracy will now be plainly displayed. It will have become a great world movement as widespread and evident as socialism and communism. It will largely have taken the place of these movements. It will be more, it will be a world religion. This large loose assimilatory mass of groups and societies will be definitely and obviously attempting to swallow up the entire population of the world and become the new human community.”

[13]Other books, such as his monumental Outline of History, pointed to the coming hope of a super-world government. However, towards the end of his life Mr. Wells’ lost much of his “Open Conspiracy” optimism. Having lived through the devastation of London’s World War II air blitz, Wells came to the realization that man’s power to wage war was too great to overcome. This conclusion was so problematic to Mr. Wells that
modern editions of his Outline of History

have removed his original thoughts about the anticipated world society.[14]

Regardless of his changed position later in life, Mr. Wells’ earlier work played a major role in formulating a global ideology.

2. Winston Churchill: Prime Minister Churchill was and still is the most visible symbol of Britain’s stance as a sovereign nation in the heat of crisis. Because of his bulldog determination, the citizens of his country were able to rally against the Nazi assault of World War II. Today, Mr. Churchill is a flagship icon of the United Kingdom Independence Party, a pro-national, anti-European Union political body. While that figure of independence is legitimate in the context of World War II, there was much more to Mr. Churchill.[15]

It is interesting to note that while the “Bulldog” was at odds with a British political organization known as the Fabian Society, which advocated a socialist world order,16 Churchill clearly embraced a world government vision. During an early September, 1943 speech on “Anglo-American Unity” at Harvard University, Churchill stated the following,

“I am here to tell you that, whatever form your system of world security may take, however the nations are grouped and ranged, whatever derogations are made from national sovereignty for the sake of the larger synthesis, nothing will work soundly or for long without the united effort of the British and American peoples.”

[17] That “system of world security” became the United Nations, of which Churchill played a fundamental role along with Stalin, Roosevelt and Truman. Churchill’s world government stance, however, really came to the forefront after the creation of the UN. Going further, the Bulldog directly linked a world government to the creation of a new European super state.

“The creation of an authoritative, all-powerful world order is the ultimate aim towards which we must strive. Unless some effective World Super- Government can be set up and brought quickly into action, the prospects for peace and human progress are dark and doubtful. But let there be no mistake upon the main issue. Without a United Europe there is no sure prospect of world government. It is the urgent and indispensable step towards the realization of that ideal.

“[18] He also made similar remarks to an audience at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, and at Zurich University

.[19] Churchill’s direct involvement in creating the United Nations, and his open support of an “effective World Super-Government,” led the American-based World Federalist Association to list him as one of the historical leaders who paved the way for the modern world government movement.

[20] Obviously there’s more to the story of Churchill than just determination and the ability to unify his country in the face of adversity. Like Wells, Churchill was committed to a larger picture of global change.

3. Bertrand Russell: Considered by many to be the most important liberal thinker of the last century, Bertrand Russell has been recognized the world over for his contributions to philosophy, politics, and peace advocacy.[21] He authored more than thirty books, lectured extensively, and openly pursued the goal of a central world authority. Born into a long family line of liberal British politicians,

[22] the young Russell likewise adopted a liberal view of the world – going so far as to philosophically embrace communism while simultaneously finding the practices of the Soviet government distasteful.[23] After visiting the Soviet Union with a specially arranged Labour Party delegation, Russell wrote; “The fundamental ideas of communism are by no means impracticable, and would, if realized, add immeasurably to the well-being of mankind.”[24] This is not surprising since Russell recognized that “The true Communist is thoroughly international.”[25]

Bertrand Russell also connected “population control” with radical world change. His ideas of de-population had a distinctively apocalyptic ring. Consider an excerpt from a lecture given at the Royal Society of Medicine in London, England.

I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.”

[26] Russell continued by offering a global solution to the global problem.

“…unless there is a world government which secures universal birth control, there must from time to time be great wars, in which the penalty of defeat is widespread death by starvation…The two great wars that we have experienced have lowered the level of civilization in many parts of the world, and the next is pretty sure to achieve much more in this direction. Unless, at some stage, one power or group of powers emerges victorious and proceeds to establish a single government of the world with a monopoly of armed force, it is clear that the level of civilization must continually decline…”

The need for a world government, if the population problem is to be solved in any humane manner, is completely evident on Darwinian principles.

[27] Russell’s thoughts on tyranny were equally disturbing.

“Given a stable world-organization, economic and political, even if, at first, it rested upon nothing but armed force, the evils which now threaten civilization would gradually diminish, and a more thorough democracy than that which now exists might become possible. I believe that, owing to men’s folly, a world-government will only be established by force, and will therefore be at first cruel and despotic. But I believe that it is necessary for the preservation of a scientific civilization, and that, if once realized, it will gradually give rise to the other conditions of a tolerable existence.

[28]“Tolerable” to who? Those who hold the ultimate authority of life and death in a global regime? Remember, this man is considered to be one of the greatest thinkers of the twentieth century. Interestingly, Russell also viewed the educational arena to be part of this global authoritarian control structure,

“…physiology [the science of the functions of living organisms] will in time find ways of controlling emotion, which is scarcely possible to doubt. When that day comes, we shall have the emotions desired by our rulers, and the chief business of elementary education will be to produce the desired disposition…The man who will administer this system will have a power beyond the dreams of the Jesuits…”

[29] Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s message of a “global society” is rooted in a movement that spans over 100 years, covering H.G. Wells, Churchill, and Russell. But there’s another connection that goes beyond visionary aspirations – one that marries the intellectual ideal of a world community with actual political power.

Fabian Brown

For over a century, the Fabian Society – mentioned earlier in this article – has advanced socialism at the British national level and beyond. Its symbol was and is the tortoise, a proclamation that “slow and steady” wins the race. But what is the finish line?

One of the most remarkable exposés done on the Fabian Society was the 1968 book, Fabian Freeway by Rose L. Martin.

[30]Rose clearly documents that the Fabians’ goal is international socialism, and connected the group to a host of interlocking organizations and movements working for similar ends. It’s not surprising to learn then, that H.G. Wells was a member of the Society – although he quit the group in frustration over its methodology – and that Bertrand Russell was part of the Fabians for a period. Since it’s inception in the mid 1880s, the Fabian Society has been the heartbeat of England’s intellectual and political movement for international socialism. The Society spawned the London School of Economics (LSE), a globally recognized university focusing on economic, political, and social issues. In fact, on April 20, 2006, Prime Minister Tony Blair unveiled “the lost Fabian window” during a ceremony at the LSE. This stained glass window shows Fabian leaders using hammers to pound a globe positioned on an anvil: it’s the remaking of the world.

[31] Along the top of the window is the phrase; “Remold It Nearer To The Hearts Desire.” H.G. Wells is seen in one corner of the picture, and a group of members are praying to a stack of social theory texts.What’s really remarkable is the coat of arms hanging over the re-forged globe: A wolf in sheep’s clothing.

This window was first unveiled by Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee, who held the PM’s office from 1945 to 1951, and then the framed glass was re-instated in 2006 by another Labour leader, Mr. Blair

.[32] This shouldn’t be a surprise; after all, the Fabian Society was the primary designer of the Labour Party. As Fabian founder Sidney Webb explained regarding the Labour/Fabian connection; “the Fabian Society participated in the very first [Labour] meeting; and has ever since formed a constituent part of the organization.”[33] Hence, from the Party’s inception, all Labour Prime Ministers have been members of the Fabian Society.[34]

This intimate connection between the Fabians and Labour explains why the Labour Party Election Manifesto of 1964 is so…blatant.

“…Labour always…remained faithful to its long-term belief in the establishment of east-west co-operation [Note: this refers to Russia and the West] as the basis for a strengthened United Nations developing towards world government…

“For us world government is the final objective – and the United Nations the chosen instrument by which the world can move away from the anarchy of power politics towards the creation of a genuine world community and the rule of law.”


Other Labour Party Election Manifestos speak of forming a world community, empowering the United Nations, and upholding a system of binding international laws: This is global governance – the centre piece of world management.

No wonder PM Brown has made so many statements over the past two years advocating a global society – it’s the heart of his Party and the bedrock of the Fabian ideal. As Brown explained in the 2008 Kennedy Memorial lecture in Boston,

“For the first time in history we have the opportunity to come together around a global covenant, to reframe the international architecture and build a truly global society.”


Wells, Churchill, Russell, and the Fabian fathers would be proud. Brown and his comrades are telling those who have ears to hear: The “global society” that has been long dreamed of is very near.

Wake up, Britain. Wake up America. Wake up Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and all those who value freedom.

“Change” is coming. FC

Carl Teichrib is a Canadian-based researcher on globalization and editor of Forcing Change (, a monthly publication documenting global governance and world change issues.


1. Clarence K. Streit,

Union Now With Britain (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1941), p.124. Clarence Streit’s idea of combining the US with the British Commonwealth to create an English-based regional world government drew heavy attention and large support from the US and British governments of the day. Our present NATO was partially founded upon Streit’s Union concept.2. One example is his promotion of the Global Poverty Act while he was still a Senator. For more on this issue, see Tom DeWeese’s article, “Barak Obama & the UN’s Drive for Global Governance,” (

3. For a current listing of foreign holders of US Treasury Securities, see the US Treasury Department’s most recent data release at

4. For information on the role of England in shaping international affairs, see Carroll Quigley’s two books, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (1966) and The Anglo-American Establishment (1981). And the UK’s involvement in colonial change cannot be ignored; From the Middle East to the Pacific and Africa, Great Britain has firmly left its finger prints on the pages of modern history.

5. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Speech to European Parliament, March 24, 2009 (this speech can be viewed at

6. UK PM Gordon Brown Speech to the Joint Session, US Congress, March 4, 2009 (full text can be obtained at

7. Clarence K. Streit, Union Now With Britain (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1941), p.124.8 Ibid., p.123.9 H.G. Wells, A Year of Prophesying (Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1925), p.86.

10. Ibid., pp.9-10.

11. Ibid., p.86.

12. H.G Wells, The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution (Garden City, 1928), p.ix.13 Ibid,. p.163.

14. See the endnote in the new revised editions of The Outline of History. Compare the new version with the 1940-1941 volume three edition.

15. See Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse, by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn for an examination of Winston Churchill’s conservative/liberal political switch-hitting.

16. See Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the USA, by Rose L. Martin for more information on the role and influence of the Fabians in European and American political affairs. Leftism by von Kuehnelt-Leddihn also contains some important information on the Fabian Society and their international role in the global socialist agenda. 17.

18. Ibid., p.913. Speech entitled “United Europe,” May 14, 1947, Albert Hall, London, UK.

19. Ibid., pp.878/893, “The Sinews of Peace,” March 5, 1946, Fulton, Missouri/”The Tragedy of Europe,” September 19, 1946, Zurich University.

20. World Federalist Association Activists Guidebook, Section 1, p.15.

21. Bertrand Russell was a giant in the field of philosophy and politics. Because of the complexities of his life and beliefs, it is completely impossible to do justification to the subject in such a limited-spaced article as this. I would suggest reading Russell’s own writings to get a sense of his life’s scope, and to read the various biographies and commentaries. Some of his more obscure works are some of his most revealing, such as The Impact of Science on Society (1953).

22. His grandfather was a Prime Minister and his father was a Member of Parliament for a brief time (he died prematurely). Others in the family tree were involved in British politics and England’s high society. For a short introduction to the Russell family’s political roots, see Alan Ryan, Bertrand Russell: A Political Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988).

23. See Bertrand Russell, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism; Sidney Hook, Political Power and Personal Freedom (B.R. has some interesting correspondence published in this work); Alan Ryan, Bertrand Russell: A Political Life.

24.The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, pp.23-24,11725 Ibid., p.30.

26. Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1953), pp.103-104.27. Ibid., p.105.

28. Bertrand Russell,

29. Ibid., p.46.

30. Rose L. Martin, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the USA (Fidelis Publishers, 1968). For more on the Fabian Society see the book The Story of Fabian Socialism by Margaret Cole (Stanford University Press, 1961) and Fabian Essays in Socialism (Fabian Society, 1908).

31. London School of Economics, “A Piece of Fabian History Unveiled at LSE,” April 20, 2006. Press release.

32. Ibid.

33. Fabian Essays in Socialism, 1920 edition, p.xv. November 1919. Introduction to the essay collection.

34. About the Fabian Society, (

3. 1964 Labour Party Election Manifesto: “The New Britain.” (The full text of this Manifesto can be found at

36 You can read selected excerpts of this speech in Developments, Issue 42, p.4. Developments is the official magazine of the UK Department for International Development.

Benefits of Forcing Change membership…

  • Access to every issue of Forcing Change, our fully documented monthly publication.
  • Membership-only admittance to a large assortment of source documents, including many rare items, all in downloadable PDF.
  • Access to specialized e-reports such as The Power Puzzle: A Compilation of Documents on Global Governance.
  • Direct access to media files, reading lists, audio features, and more!

Forcing Change is a membership subscription service, with an annual fee of $120.00 US. Membership in Forcing Change allows access to the full range of FC publications, including e-reports, audio and media presentations, Forcing Change back issues, downloadable expert documents, and more. FC receives neither government funding nor the financial backing of any other institutions; rather, Forcing Change operates solely on subscription/membership support. To learn more about Forcing Change, including membership benefits, go to

Forcing Change

P.O. Box 31

Plumas, Manitoba, Canada


For publications

: Permission to re-publish articles found in Forcing Change is granted, providing that FC credit is acknowledged (preferably with the Forcing Change URL attached), and that Forcing Change  

The Future of Science (New York: Wisdom Library, 1959), pp.33-34.

Churchill Speaks, 1897-1963: Collected Speeches in Peace and War (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1980), p.817.

is notified of the public article use.

“No others have done so much to bring about world government as we Americans and British have.” Clarence K. Streit, Union Now With Britain.


I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.”

Bertrand Russell [26]




Russell continued by offering a global solution to the global problem.

“…unless there is a world government which secures universal birth control, there must from time to time be great wars, in which the penalty of defeat is widespread death by starvation…The two great wars that we have experienced have lowered the level of civilization in many parts of the world, and the next is pretty sure to achieve much more in this direction. Unless, at some stage, one power or group of powers emerges victorious and proceeds to establish a single government of the world with a monopoly of armed force, it is clear that the level of civilization must continually decline…”


The need for a world government, if the population problem is to be solved in any humane manner, is completely evident on Darwinian principles.



Why put swine flu vaccine in with seasonal flu vaccine- then try to keep this fact hidden?

Russell’s thoughts on tyranny were equally disturbing.

“Given a stable world-organization, economic and political, even if, at first, it rested upon nothing but armed force, the evils which now threaten civilization would gradually diminish, and a more thorough democracy than that which now exists might become possible. I believe that, owing to men’s folly, a world-government will only be established by force, and will therefore be at first cruel and despotic. But I believe that it is necessary for the preservation of a scientific civilization, and that, if once realized, it will gradually give rise to the other conditions of a tolerable existence.

10. November: Independent ie. 26 Oct. 2009 and CTVNewsca. Large un-published Canadian study in peer review shows that people who had seasonal flu-vaccine last year have twice the risk of contracting swine flu as non-vaccinated persons. Dr. Ethan Rubinstein, Manitoba University approves of the the study. Therefore, the Government of Canada suspended vaccination of everybody under 65 years of age! See post of 6.Nov., too.

Svineinfluenza-smittede-dk-uge-449 Nov. 2009: Graph from Statens Seumintitut, the last column is for  week 44 – its peak indicates 100 Influenza A(H1N1)v, ie. published “swine flu” cases. The total of  infected Danes is 934 out of a total population of 5.511.800.

But here’s the Method of the Danish Serum Institute for diagnosis of swine influenza. The disease incidence is measured by approximately 120 GPs, who each week send data throughout the influenza season, ie. from week 40 in the autumn to week 20 in the spring. Doctors report the number of patients with influenza-like illness….. The diagnosis is made alone by the symptoms of the patient –  without lab tests.…. and also reported to the WHO.This means only 2-17% have swine influenza since the SSI indicates the graph as an expression of influenza activity in Denmark. THIS IS HOW THE SWINE FLU SCAM IS FOUNDED.

8. nov. 2009:Jyllands-Posten: Scientists acknowledge that we do not know the long-term side effects of the vaccine, but the risk by not allowing oneself to be vaccinated – especially for sick people and pregnant women –  is probably bigger, says Health Minister Jakob Axel Nielsen. He will not let himself be vaccinated – but nevertheless recommends vulnerable groups to do so. The pharmaceutical industry is terrified at damages, which could cost companies huge sums. Therefore, it is natural that the producers have demanded a disclaimer regarding influenza vaccine. Denmark (ultimatively) got three days to sign the agreement with GlaxoSmithKline for the supply of vaccines, and Denmark had to pay 10 million. DKK a year just to get a place in the queue to purchase the vaccines. Better late than never. I sent material to and talked with the J-P on 25th August about the dangers of this vaccine. 

6. nov. 2009. Copenhagen University Newspaper 21. nov. 2008. Prof. Ole J. Bjerrum: According to a VaccineForum investigation for the Consumers´Advisory Council,  seasonal flu vaccination is effective in only 25%  – and keeps employees away from work just 1 1/2 hours less per employee per flu season. The 2 editorial employees of the Newspaper who were vaccinated in 2008, both fell ill with flu within the following week – as did I, the only time I was vaccinated against the flu  

4. Nov. 2009 Ukraine RIANovosti: A total of 81 people have died of influenza-like diseases in Ukraine, the country’s chief sanitary doctor Oleksandr Bilovol said on Wednesday. Over 478,000 people have fallen ill, 81 died.” He said 14 confirmed swine flu cases have been registered in the country and three of them have been fatal. So this is obviously not a swine flu epidemic. And the death figure is not scaring in comparison with seasonal flu.
I have received a mail from a US blog, the address links of which do not work, telling me to buy all the the Tamiflu I can get – and there is a terrible scarcity of vaccine and Tamiflu (which has no effect on seasonal flu) !!!!!!
Strange, on Oct 16, 2009 at a Council on Foreign Relations symposium to set out government policy against swine flu and the aversion of the majority of Americans to have the jab, a Washington Professor with a Danish name and accent,  Lone Simonsen, suggests to hype vaccine scarcity- and people will line up for vaccinations – as previously tried. Entire record of the symposium here. Vaccine opponents are called extremists in an unholy Hitler-Stalin pact!

4. Nov. 2009: Swedish swine flu vaccination campaign. After the last report by Dagens Nyheter  on Oct 24 of 190 reported ( + probably many unreported) severe acute vaccination side effects, the description of the sufferings of a Swedish nurse and her colleagues, 4 vaccination deaths  and Aftonbladets statement, that the vaccine might be too strong  – I have found no further releases from Swedish authorities on side effects  – although there are rumors of more deaths during the ongoing campaign.

24. Okt. 2009: Only 2-17% of influenza-like illnesses are swine flu. Finland has downgraded the swine flu as not dangerous, while Sweden has launched mass vaccinations with unpleasant side effects. Obama proclaims  a swine flu state of emergency, which is based on a completely false numerical basis – as the U.S. stopped identifying swine flu cases in July – simply classifying  every cold-disease as swine flu. 18 Oct. 2009:

What else is in the swine flu vaccine?  See on this NBC-video (5:45 min) the chip at the point of the injection needle. As shown, it can be used to change the behaviour of animals (and people, too).Is this the reason, why New World OrderPoliticians (see videos on right margin of this blog) are so keen on having us vaccinated?17 Oct. 2009

: According to the MMnews and Der Spiegel and

Die Welt: The German government and the Paul-Ehrlich-Institute, which decreed the GSK swine flu vaccine with squalene and thimerosal for the German population, now have ordered Baxters vaccine without squalene and thimerosal for themselves – not for the people!!   

13 Oct. 2009: The Local – Germany´s News In English: The A/H1N1 flu shots given to soldiers will contain neither a controversial strengthening additive (squalene), nor the preservative agent mercury, both of which are contained in the shots for the general public. The president of Germany’s Association of Children’s and Young People’s Physicians (BVKJ), Wolfram Hartmann, told the Westfalen-Blatt that the vaccines committee of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin had reacted with surprise to the Bundeswehr’s “solo approach.”
He called for children aged six months to six years to also be given the additive-free shots.

1 Oct. 2009: The deadly 2 wave of swine flu. Scaremongering or sequel of vaccination

6 Sept. 2oo9:
The swine flu pandemic was planned by the WHO at least 2 months before declared – and thus is not medically founded. The EU now stops countinng cases, because they do not correspond to what the EU had hoped – just 46.000 cases so far verified. In Egypt now mixed swine and bird flu cases have appeared in 3 persons!


3 responses to “Rothschild – ‘The City’ – World Conquest – “We Own You – We Will Take Everything”

  1. Pingback: A Little Off the Top—Some Clear Message for Occupy Wall Street |

  2. Pingback: End Corporatocracy by Rand Clifford « Dandelion Salad

  3. Pingback: A little off the top—some clear message for Occupy Wall Street | Intrepid

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s