Waters Flowing Eastward_ Fabianisn

Sitting having my breakfast this morning, LBC News, Ed Balls will later today be giving a speech at the Fabian society, what if the news reader had said, a speech at the Zionist/Communist or even Fascist party? it occured to me that the average person in England today knows as much about THEIR leaders as they know about nuclear physics.

Decades of damaging changes to their country, yet all they seem to do is shrug their shoulders saying: “What can we do”?

Obviuosly they have decided to just sit and watch, don’t rock the boat and all that!

Two EDs Both Fabians!!

Electing the enemies then asking whats’ gone wrong……Crazy people!

As to the financial ” ideas ” of The Fabians, whose basic principle is the ruin of Capitalism, they became realities when taxation of the people took undue proportions in the shape of income tax, super-tax, death duties—, and are to be followed by Capital Levy.

Having secured posts on the School-boards of the country, it became very easy for Fabian socialists to instil their educational de-Christianised principles in the school curriculum. Their attack on religious teaching was subtle but deadly, as seen in the Education Act of 1902

Later the damned Immigration act….

Fabianism left no field unexplored or unexploited. For fifty years, it has treated England to doses of both pure and diluted Marxism, mostly diluted, as the English, by the very nature of their steady and conservative characteristics, are not easily aroused to excesses like those perpetrated by the Paris ” Communards ” of 1871. But, on the other hand, they have been thoroughly permeated, and their poisoning has been one of long process.

The results are, to the naked eye, the history of England since the War, politically and economically.

George Orwell called them anti British, after he left this mob.

Think on this…Cameron, ” I’m zionist and proud to be”
The twin brothers Zionism and Communism…….A Tory?????


The Reverend Denis Fahey, C.S.SP., D.D, D.PH., M.A

Editor of Waters Flowing Eastward

1st Edition 1931
2nd Edition Revised 1933
3rd Edition Revised 1934
4th Edition Revised 1953
5th Edition Enlarged 1965
6th Edition 1988


The preceding chapters have been devoted to a study of the Jewish world organization, its historical background, its branches, its aims and the methods whereby they are obtained. If the reader has followed the thread thus far patiently and objectively, his mind has doubtless grasped, not only the historical facts and specific Jewish plans for the immediate future, but also something of Jewish character and psychology in general. A full knowledge of the latter—which can be gained only through personal experience—is the greatest safeguard against Jewish snares and pitfalls of everyday life.

In the following pages will be found the names of men and women prominent in political, economic and social circles who, lured by the tempting bait, have become enmeshed in Jewish intrigue. To all the world they appear to play an independent role; but in reality they are merely puppets whose every move is worked by strings from behind the scene.l

The close observer will discover, slavishly serving the Jewish cause under the mask of benevolence, democracy or liberalism, bishops, archbishops, prime ministers and national presidents, government officials of every rank and leading representatives of all other professions (lawyers, economists, scientists and the rest). He will recognize them at once as traitors who have sold themselves and their country for their own personal advantage.

” Every man aims at power, everyone would like to become a dictator if only he could, and rare indeed are the men who would not be willing to sacrifice the welfare of all for the sake of securing their own welfare.”2 But these traitors, when the great day comes, like their counterparts in the French and in the recent Russian revolutions, will pay the price of treason with their heads.3

Not less useful to the Jewish cause than those holding official positions, are the rich scions of socially prominent families: their wealth and their prestige are the ” force and make-believe ” of the Jewish countersign.* A rich young Bostonian, Garland, gave millions of dollars to the foundation which bears his name, and appointed as one of its trustees the notorious ” red “, William Zebulon Foster.

” Foster told them that the Garland Foundation could be depended upon whenever anyone got into trouble because of radical political opinions. Several of the organizers of the Communist party and of its ‘ legal’ political branch, the Workers’ party, were promised regular monthly salaries by Foster, to be paid from the Garland Foundation ”

Another example is the Philadelphian, William Curtis Bok, who, on the death of his grandfather, Cyrus H. K. Curtis, in 1933, inherited6 a major interest in the huge Curtis Publishing Company, comprising The Ladies Home Journal, Good Housekeeping, The Philadelphia Public Ledger, The New York Evening Post and other journals.7 Bok, now 35, on his return from Soviet Russia, founded a new group to facilitate Bolshevik propaganda in America: ” There came into being in Philadelphia last week (July, 1933) a new investigating agency sponsored by the American Foundation. It was called The Committee on Russian-American Relations and its membership included such potent figures as the Morgan partner, Thomas W. Lamont, whose son Corliss is a near Communist; the Harvard economist Frank W. Taussig;8 the lawyer Paul D. Cravath,9 a Russian recognitionist; James D. Mooney, President of General Motors Export Co.; Dean Roscoe Pound, of Harvard Law School, a Liberal of the first water; Hugh L. Cooper, the engineer who built the Dnieprostry Dam for the U.S.S.R. Modestly buried away in the middle of the committee list was the name of its Chairman and sponsor— Curtis Bok.”10 Many more examples of rich people of good families, such as Mrs. Elmhirst (nee Dorothy Whitney), Lady Astor, the Dowager Countess of Warwick, come to mind, but space does not allow mention of all here, nor of a discussion of how and why each was inveigled into the Jewish net and into the base r61e of patron and purveyor to criminals.

Suffice it to say that, in general, these people ” thirst for the emotion of success and applause, of which we (the Jews) are remarkably generous. And the reason why we give them this success is to make use of their high conceit of themselves, to which it gives birth. For that insensibly disposes them to assimilate our suggestions without being on their guard against them, in the fullness of their confidence that it is their own infallibility which is giving utterance to their own thoughts, and that it is impossible for them to borrow those of others… You cannot imagine to what extent the wisest of the goyim can be brought to a state of unconscious naivete in the presence of this high conceit of themselves; and at the same time how easy it is to take the heart out of them by the slightest ill-success, though it be nothing more than silencing the applause they enjoyed, and reducing them to slavish submission for the sake of winning a renewal of success.”11

Much has already been written about Bolshevism being led by Jews;12 the same applies to it in Mexico, China and Spain, where the systematic violence and terrorism, oft alluded to in the Protocols as Jewish means of exercising power, have had full play. War is now waged against civilization in Europe and the United States, but it assumes another aspect. The ascent of the Jew to power in those countries is made on the ladder of Fabianism, of which Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Bolshevism and Internationalism are the chief rungs.

The definition and aims of Fabianism are given by the Fabians themselves as follows:

Basis of the Fabian Society

The Fabian Society consists of Socialists.

It therefore aims at the reorganization of Society by the emancipation of Land and Industrial Capital from individual ownership and the vesting of them in the community for the general benefit. In this way only can the natural and acquired advantages of the country be equitably shared by the whole people.

The Society accordingly works for the extinction of private property in land, with equitable consideration of established expectations, and due provision as to the tenure of the home and homestead: for the transfer to the community, by constitutional methods, of all such industries as can be conducted socially: and for the establishment, as the governing consideration in the regulation of production, distribution and service, of the common good instead of private profit.

The Society is a constituent of the Labour Party and of the International Socialist Congress: but it takes part freely in all constitutional movements, social, economic and political, which can be guided towards its own objects. Its direct business is: (a) the propaganda of Socialism in its application to current problems; (b) investigation and discovery in social, industrial, political and economic relations; (c) the working out of Socialist principles in legislation and administrative reconstruction; (d) the publication of the results of its investigations and their practical lessons.

The Society, believing in equal citizenship of men and women in the fullest sense, is open to persons irrespective of sex, race or creed, who commit themselves to its aims and purposes as stated above and undertake to promote its work.

The Society took the name of Fabian from the policy of temporizing it adopted, claiming to imitate that of the Roman dictator, Fabius Cunctator, during his fight against Hannibal, whom he eventually defeated at Tarentum, 215 B. C.

Frank Podmore, well-known spiritualist and occultist, one of the founders of the Fabian Society, is quoted as saying to one of its earliest members:—”For the right moment, you must wait, as Fabius did most patiently, when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays, but when the time comes, you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain and fruitless.”

The Fabian Society waited forty years, striking a continual series of covert blows at the political, economic, social and religious structure of England, and in 1924 it came to power with the advent of the first Labour Government, which can be called the offspring of the Fabian Society.

The period had been fruitful, if long.

There is no gainsaying that the Fabian Society has been first and foremost a gathering of intellectuals—a rebellious Intelligentsia whose accomplishments seem the realisation of Weishaupt’s dream of Masonic Illuminism, cleverly combined with Moses Mendelssohn’s dream of Jewish Illuminism (Haskalah).

Historically, it was founded in 1883 at the time when in the realm of philosophy and metaphysics, the political economy of John Stuart Mill, in England, and the Positivism of Auguste Comte, in France, had thrown perturbation into the minds of numerous thinkers and given abundant food to the Freethinkers of the epoch. Henry George’s book on Socialism, Progress and Poverty, was in great vogue. The direct influence leading to the formation of the Fabian Society was, according to E. R. Pease, its historian, exercised by Thomas Davidson, the founder of The Fellowship of the New Life, which society culminated in The Ethical Society of Culture in New York. Considerable impulse was also given to the budding association by its assimilation of Robert Dale Owen’s socialistic principles.

Among the intellectuals who joined The Fabian Society soon after its inception in 1884 was the Irishman, George Bernard Shaw, who was elected a member in that year.

At that time, The Fabian Society had completely seceded from the Fellowship of the New Life and had formulated its own Socialistic programme. The following year, Sidney Webb, now Lord Passfield and ex-Minister of the Colonies, as well as Sydney Olivier, now Lord Olivier, who has held several Government appointments, were elected members of The Fabian Society. Soon afterwards, the late Mrs. Annie Besant, later head of the Theosophical Movement, also was elected a member.

Fabian Socialism, at the outset, groped its way along all the beaten paths of the Social Revolutionists who had preceded them. It also made incursions into Babouvism, Marxism, Bakounist Anarchism and the then existing various Social-Democratic groups. Being, however, mainly composed of intellectuals, bureaucrats, civil servants, journalists, etc., the Fabians, whose fundamental slogan was the righting of the wrongs of the working class, had no keen desire for riotous street manifestations and confined their earliest activities to drawing-room meetings.

It does not enter within the limits of the present sketch to retrace the history of the Fabian Society, but the point which should be regarded as of great importance is that out of the drawing-room meetings alluded to above, there emerged the truly Fabian tactics of temporizing and the decision taken and followed of penetrating into or, as Bernard Shaw himself expressed it, of permeating numerous existing societies with Fabian socialistic ideas and principles.

This method of penetrating into organizations, political and economic, and of boring from within, gave, in time, remarkable results. Fabians, mainly Civil Servants, easily found their affinities in Liberal circles and, moreover, owing to their loudly proclaimed socialistic profession of faith, obtained the confidence of the working classes. They were indeed sitting on both sides of the fence and recruiting the good-will of both Liberal and Labour organizations.

The study of Fabianism is one of almost unparalleled opportunism. Fabians seemed to have formulated no original creed of their own, but were animated by an unswerving resolve to get to the top and govern England. They accepted the creed or tenets of any camp into which they penetrated and, by degrees, converted its adherents to their own views. In this manner Fabian members secured their positions in political, industrial and educational fields. To suit even Anarchism, they formed a special Fabian branch which bore the name of The Fabian Parliamentary League.

No field of exploitation seems to have been overlooked by these socialist intellectual Illuminati:


In Politics, their range of activities has been well defined by one of its leaders, Bernard Shaw, in a paper he read at a conference in 1892, at Essex Hall. The policy of ” permeation ” of the Fabian Society was clearly outlined and much stress laid upon the enumeration of results already achieved. Within a year of this conference, in January 1893, The Independent Labour Party was formed by the grouping of the local Fabian societies then in existence. These groups, under the leadership of Keir Hardie, Friedrich Engels (co-worker with Karl Marx), and Marx’s daughter, E. Aveling, had accepted, as their code, Marxism thus summarised:—To establish a Socialist State where Land and Capital will be held by the Community. On such principles was Russia transformed into Soviet Russia in 1917.

The author of The History of The Fabian Society does not fail to point it out as the Parent Society, emphasizing the fact that the Marxist Independent Labour Party was but its offspring. Thus, leading, on the one hand, Marxist Socialism and having, on the other, so permeated the Liberal party that they also practically ruled it, the Fabians were soon able to take part in local elections, and propose their own candidates for appointments on School Boards, Vestries, County Councils, Women’s Liberal Federations, Liberal and Radical Unions, etc. They spared no pains in pushing forward the autonomy of municipalities as well as the various schemes for National Insurance, Old Age Pensions, Tariff Reform, Employers’ Liability, Workmen’s Compensation, etc.

Politically also, through their offspring, The Independent Labour Party, they asserted their defeatist and anti-patriotic tenets during the Boer War of 1899-1902, when they expressed their wish ” to see the Boers successful and the British Army driven into the sea.”

By 1903, The Independent Labour Party, after 10 years of indefatigable efforts among the Trade Unionists, gave its parent, The Fabian Society, the opportunity and satisfaction of presenting England with a full-fledged Labour Party. Up to that time, Fabian candidates had contested and won seats in Parliament as Liberals. The practice of the policy of interlocking directorates had never been better evidenced than by the tactics of Fabianism.

The outbreak of the War in 1914 furnished the Illuminati of Socialism with the opportunity of manifesting their anti-patriotic feelings much more openly than they had done during the Boer War. It was then that their policy of interlocking directorates bore abundant fruit. What one might call the ” melting ” property of The Fabian Society became more evident for, as such, it did not create a record of anti-patriotism. That particular task was entrusted to its members of the Labour Party andthe Independent Labour Party who took a prominent part in the formation of the Union of Democratic Control, which counted the Zionist Jew, Israel Zangwill, amongst its leading band-masters.

The shameful defeatist, pro-German activities of the Prime Minister of England, Ramsay Macdonald, Fabian and Labourite during the World War, and the open support given to Bolshevism by his Labour Party have for ever sullied the political honour of England and are a matter of history.

Yet another aspect of Fabianism is the great part it took in the formation and, later, direction of The League of Nations, which Bernard Shaw calls an incipient international government.


In the realm of the Economic, Industrial and Financial life of England, The Fabian Society played no less a part than in politics. With its slogan of ” Progressive Policy “,1? it invaded Agriculture, preaching the Nationalisation of land, in other words, the confiscation of landed property.

The first blow to Industry was struck in Lancashire, the stronghold of English industry, in 1890, with the help of the late Mrs. Annie Besant,14 as chief spokesman and agitator. Later, the Cooperative movement was captured and Fabi-anised and subsequently delivered over to the Independent Labour Party and Labour Party. It is due to the Socialists having been so successful in conquering industry that, during the World War, sabotage assumed such appalling proportions in the munition factories in England.

As to the financial ” ideas ” of The Fabians, whose basic principle is the ruin of Capitalism, they became realities when taxation of the people took undue proportions in the shape of income tax, super-tax, death duties—, and are to be followed by Capital Levy. The promised benefits to the working class to be derived from such schemes as the National Health Insurance and Workmen’s Compensation and Dole, Old Age and Widow’s Pensions, have proved a myth. Yet they have gone a long way towards furthering the plans exposed in the Protocols, which aim at reducing to bondage the Goyim, rich and poor alike.


In the matter of Education, the Fabian Illuminati have followed a theory which is none other than that suggested by one of the souls of Bavarian Illumin-ism, Nicolai, in the 18th century. Having secured posts on the School-boards of the country, it became very easy for Fabian socialists to instil their educational de-Christianised principles in the school curriculum. Their attack on religious teaching was subtle but deadly, as seen in the Education Act of 1902. They boasted openly of having in their ranks several Anglican bishops and divines, the list being headed by Bishop Headlam, one of the earliest Fabians. Eventually they won, having, as has always been their wont, resorted to intensive propaganda, generously distributing their tracts and leaflets.

From Our Political Correspondent.

The Government is to be presented with a brand new policy. Certain ministers are to take part in its preparation.

It is called a ” long run”

Under Fabian educational schemes come the formation of the Educational Groups and of ” The Nursery,” the latter designed as a kind of training school for very young prospective Socialists. Women’s groups were also formed, the members of which participated in all movements tending to a fuller feminist emancipation. But, by far, one of the most important steps taken by the Fabians along educational lines has been their inauguration in existing Universities of ” University Socialist Societies,” which in 1912 were finally grouped by Clifford Allen into ” the Universities Socialist Federation.” Fertile seeds of Fabian Socialism are also sown at the Summer Schools organized annually by the Society, which E. R. Pease rightly terms a ” propagandist society “. The culminating triumph of the Fabians, in the realm of education, was the creation of the London School of Economics and Political Science at the London University where, today, one of the chief lecturers is the Jew socialist, Harold J. Laski, Member of the Executive Committee of the Fabian Society and Chairman of its Publishing Committee.

As has been suggested already, and as can be seen from the succinct expose here given, Fabianism left no field unexplored or unexploited. For fifty years, it has treated England to doses of both pure and diluted Marxism, mostly diluted, as the English, by the very nature of their steady and conservative characteristics, are not easily aroused to excesses like those perpetrated by the Paris ” Communards ” of 1871. But, on the other hand, they have been thoroughly permeated, and their poisoning has been one of long process.

The results are, to the naked eye, the history of England since the War, politically and economically.

Lloyd George’s Coalition Government had been kind to Socialism, but the real harvest-time came when the Labour Party won the election In 1924 and its members governed, or rather misgoverned, England. It needed nothing short of the Bolshevist alliance which Macdonald wished to force upon the country to provoke the remaining sound reaction of the English people and prompt them to overthrow the Labour Government. But this show of resistance was ephemeral.

How pitiful it is to know that the return of the Labour Party to power, in May, 1929, is entirely due to the incompetence of a Conservative Government, in which the people trusted for sane administration of the affairs of State. Yet, the Prime Minister, Leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Baldwin, could not claim ignorance of the Judeo-masonic plans contained in the Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion. He found it easier deliberately to disregard them. Be that as it may, England was once more in the hands of the Labour Party with the inevitable and ubiquitous Ramsay Macdonald and, according to the latest report issued by the Society “eight Fabians are members of the Cabinet and fourteen others hold offices in the Government without seats in the Cabinet.'”

From the Jew-led Fabian Society issue the chaotic words and deeds which are steadily wrecking not only general prosperity, but also combating with international forces drawn from all quarters of the globe any attempt at national readjustment such as the present movement in Germany.

The drawing-room meeting system described by E. R. Pease, and which in America is known as ” parlor-bolshe-vism,” formed to gain well-to-do adherents, still functions, as witness the following article which appeared in the London Evening Standard of May 28, 1931:


To-morrow evening a group of Socialists and Trade Unionists will begin fashioning the new plan at a meeting to be held at Transport House.15 The prime movers are Major C. R. Attlee (Postmaster-General), and Mr. G, D. H. Cole.

Sir Stafford Cripps (the Solicitor-General), Mr. Ernest Bevin, and Mr. Noel Baker, M. P. (Mr. Arthur Henderson’s Parliamentary Private-Secretary) are among those expected to accept Society is more intellectual than political.

This ascendancy is, of course, due to the all-powerful influence

list politicians, economists and trades unionists foregathered at week-ends. Out of these meetings grew the new Fabian Research Bureau (of which Major Attlee is chairman and Mr. Cole secretary), which received the official blessing of the Labour movement two months ago and is now established in premises in Abing-don Street.17

the invitation of Major Attlee and Mr. Cole at tomorrow’s meeting.


The new policy—or the plan for a new policy—had its origin in a series of house parties held last year at Easton Lodge (the Labour Chequers),16 when Socialism.

It is with this new policy that we are presently concerned. Outside of England, the Fabians are affiliated with strong Socialist groups professing the same ideas in Denmark, South Africa, Canada and Australia, Japan, United States, Spain and Germany. Lectures by Fabians were also given in Paris at the Comite d’Etudes Nationales, founded and directed by the Jew, Albert Kahn, and also at the Club du Faubourg, organized by the Jew, Leo Poldes, as well as to the French Socialist Party, headed by the Jew Leon Blum.

On November 1, 1930, the Evening Standard, already, quoted, contained the following lines:


tion has been made from the membership of the Society, the latest examples of which are the new Air Minister, Lord Amulree, and the new Solicitor-General, Sir Stafford Cripps. I am told that at least 90 per cent of the members of the Government are on the rolls of the Society, and that, contrary to regulations, so are a good many highly placed Civil Servants. The Civil Servants would probably defend themselves by saying that the

Many Labour members are talking about the dominance in the Government of that very academic body, the Fabian Society. I find that many people believed that this organization, through which many intellectuals entered the Socialist movement, had ceased to exist. But it goes on with a membership, small but influential, of some 5,000.

Yet practically every recent appointment, either to high or low office, in the Labour administraon Lord Passfleld and his wife, Mrs. Sidney Webb, with whom the Fabian Society has been the passion of their lives.

If, on the one hand, the British Government is run by avowed Fabians, the present United States Government is in exactly the same position. The ” brain trust ” of Franklin D. Roosevelt is composed of several Jews, among them Bernard M. Baruch, Herbert Swope, Mordecai Ezekiel, James Warburg, Frank W. Taussig, Others like Swanson, Secretary of the Navy,18 Arthur Bullitt, Louis M. Howe, Raymond Moley, Tugwell, George N. Peek, if not Jews, were closely connected with Jews and such radical organizations as the Conference for Progressive Political Action, the Rand School for Communism, the Friends of Soviet Russia, the League for Industrial Democracy.

The League for Industrial Democracy19 is the American counterpart of British Fabianism. It runs parallel to the Ethical Culture Society, founded by the Jew, Felix Adler, the Conference for Progressive Political Action, the Intercollegiate Socialist League, the Intercollegiate Liberal League, the American Civil Liberties Union, and countless other subversive groups. Under the heading ” Other Fabian Organizations “, mentioned in the Fabian Society’s annual report for 1932, one reads:

” Active relations are maintained between the ” Fabian Society and the League for Industrial Democracy of America…with the Public Ownership League of the U.S.A.”

Is not one forcibly reminded of the following sentence? ” We appear on the scene as alleged saviours of the worker from this oppression, when we propose to him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces—Socialists, Anarchists, Communists—to whom we always give support in accordance with an alleged brotherly rule (of the solidarity of all humanity) of our social masonry “.20

Not less than English Universities, have the American colleges been permeated with Fabian theories, and hardly any of them are without a branch of the National Student Forum (long headed by John Rothschild) or of the Intercollegiate Liberal League,21 founded at Harvard in 1921. Particular attention must be drawn to the Rand School of New York, founded in 1905 which, ten years ago, was raided by order of the United States Government on account of its Communist teaching.22

The penetration of Fabianism in the church of America is fully evidenced by the subversive activities of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America.23

As President Roosevelt’s ” brain trust” was recruited from such centres, it is clear that the composition of both the British and American Governments is similar. It is Jewish-radical or, to use plain language, Jewish-bolshevist. Both governments are run by men who are merely puppets in the hands of Jews highly placed in the secret councils of the central Jewish Kahal, the present-day Zionist World organization, whose object is the ultimate destruction of all our religious, social and industrial institutions and the annihilation of our freedom. It is therefore interesting to note that plans, evolved in the numerous bolshevist-socialist centres created by Fabians, Liberals and Socialists, are being executed in both the British Empire and the United States.

It is curious to compare these wonderful socialist economic plans with those which were to have been the basis of the ideal Jewish State in Palestine, after the Balfour Declaration. They were formulated in 1919 by Bernard A. Rosenblatt, a prominent Zionist, in his book Social Zionism. From it we cull only the following lines, not devoid of a certain interest:—

A. The Jew as a social force in history:

The prophets of Israel as the preachers of political, social and economic democracy.
The rabbis as the teachers in a democratic school of Jewish students.
The Jewish figures in political history almost invariably the leaders in Liberalism, Labour and Socialism:
(a) Examples: Karl Marx, Lasalle, Hess, Lasker, Bernstein, Joseph Fels, Brandeis,24 Gompers25
(b) Even unreasonable extremists like Trotzki show only the necessary evil involved in this Jewish tendency toward social justice.26
The press notice of Rosenblatt’s book in the American Jewish News is headed Will the Jews again lead the world?”27

The ” experiment” of this ideal socialism having originally failed in Palestine, it is to be tried now in both England and America. In England, the centralisation of all the plans for the ” new policy ” has, for quite some time, been worked under the name of ” Political and Economic Planning” or ” P. E. P. “, and in America it has taken the name of ” N. R. A. ” (National Recovery Act). The plans of both are identical, only the method of execution is different. Whereas the English must be dealt with slowly, and as it were taken unawares, the American people, on account of the ignorance and the primitiveness of the masses, can be treated brutally, as is being done by Hugh Johnson28 and other henchmen of President Roosevelt. In America, coercion is the order of the day; “freedom” is now a meaningless word; whereas the Englishman is asked to forego his freedom for the sake of patriotism, the American masses, aliens to the Anglo-Saxon race, are swayed only by cupidity and the promise of material prosperity. Both methods produce the same results: the concentration of all material resources in the hands of the Jews, the lowering of our standard of living, and complete physical and moral degradation.29

1. “Who will ever suspect 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? ” Protocol No. 13, supra, p. 152. See also quotation’from Coningsby, supra, pp. 100-102.

2. Protocol No. 1, supra, pp. 114-120. It must be borne in mind that many of these men have, at one time or another in their lives, been involved in some crooked business or scandal and dread its disclosure: supra, pp. 119-120.

3. The aristocracy who served the Jewish cause in bringing about these revolutions were not even rewarded with life but perished with the innocent under the edifice they had so efficiently undermined.

4. Protocol No. 1, supra, p. 118.

5. Whitney, Reds in America. (Beckwith Press, New York, 1924), pp. 80-81.

6. Together with his mother and younger brother.

7. Curtis’s gross receipts from advertising for 1929 amounted to 73 million dollars; and for 1930, to 67 millions.

8. See infra, p. 211.

9. Notorious radical and shadow of Otto H. Kahn. In 1924 Cravath tried to secure the nomination of Otto Kahn as President of the English Speaking Union; and the manoeuvre was defeated only by the timely exposure of Kahn’s bolshevist activities. It was proved that Kahn’s house was a meeting place for Soviet agents, such as Nina Somorodin, Clare Sheridan, Louise Bryant and Margaret Harrison.

10. See Time (Chicago Weekly) for July 17, 1933.

11. Pw/oco/No. 15, supra, pp. 158-9.

12. Supra, pp. 39-40.

13. Compare the subversive Conference for Political Progressive Action in America.

14. Supra, p. 204.

15. The premises of The Labour Party.

16. Easton Lodge is the seat of Frances, Dowager Countess of Warwick. The Socialism of all ” Parlor-Bolsheviks ” reminds one of the Jew Isaac McBride’s utterance: “We are going to milk the bourgeoisie and they will help us to keep [up] the struggle against themselves.”

17. No. 23 Abingdon Street is the seat of the S. S. I. P. (Society for Socialist Inquiry and Propaganda) ; the new Fabian Research Bureau: and the Socialist League.

18. See Whitney, Reds in America, pp. 49, 58, 59.

19. Among the members of the Board of Directors of this League in 1926 figured Justine Wise, daughter of Rabbi Stephen Wise.

20. Protocol No. 3, Supra, p. 124.

21. Felix Frankfurter was one of its sponsors.

22. It is noteworthy that the Rand School received important financial support from the former Mrs. Willard Straight, nfe Dorothy P. Whitney, now the wife of Leonard Elmhirst who, according to Mr. Israel Sieff’s statement, is Chairman of the agricultural group of the P. E. P. One of the lecturers at the Rand School who has come into recent prominence is Raymond Moley, personal adviser to President Roosevelt, and his special delegate to the London Conference, 1933.

23. See Sanctuary, Tainted Contacts (New York, 1931).

24. Louis D. Brandeis, an active Zionist, formerly close personal adviser to President Wilson during the War, and who, since then, has been sitting as Justice on the Federal Supreme Court at Washington.

25. The late Samuel Gompers, President of The American Federation of Labour.

26. If wholesale murder as practised by Trotzki (Braunstein) is only ” the necessary evil involved on this Jewish tendency toward social justice,” one hesitates to ask what evil would be necessary in order that the Jews might confer on us some greater social blessing.

27. The introduction to Rosenblatt’s book is by Judge Julian W. Mack, U. S. Circuit Judge, on Juvenile Court, 1904-1917; member Board of Inquiry on Conscientious Objectors, 1917-1918; President Zionist Organization of America, 1921.

28. ” In 1927, Baruch asked Johnson to join him in his New York office, and ever since, the General has been Baruch’s right-hand man… During most of these years (after the War) Johnson was in touch with a man who was in the thick of many contests of finance, battles of Wall Street, and intrigues of international banking. This was Bernard Mannes Baruch, suave and rich New York capitalist, friend and sup porter of the President, who gave Johnson to Roosevelt… Another ace man on the Roosevelt staff here, George N. Peck, Administrator of the Farm Relief Act, was also a War Industries Board member, friend of Baruch, partner of Johnson in plough-making.” Chicago Tribune, August 16, 1933.

29. ” All people are chained down to heavy toil by poverty more firmly than ever they were chained by slavery and serfdom; from these, one way or another, they might free themselves, these could be settled with, but from want they will never get away.” Protocol No. 3, supra, p. 123.

” The aristocracy which enjoyed by law the labour of the workers was interested in seeing that the workers were well-fed, healthy and strong. We are interested in just the opposite—in the diminution, the killing out of the goyim. Our power is in the chronic shortness of food and physical weakness of the worker because, by all that this implies, he is made the slave of our will and he will not find in his own authorities either strength or energy to set against our will.” Supra, p. 124.

” The need for daily bread forces the goyim to keep silence and be our humble servants.” Protocol No. 13, supra, p. 152.

PEP….Studied at Oxford Uni by Cameron….

3.2 Freedom And Planning
Leslie Fry Waters Flowing Eastward
The following document entitled Freedom andPlanning emanates from the Jew Israel Moses Sieff, Chairman of the Fabian P. E. P. (Political and Economic Plan) in London. Mr. Sieff is, according to The Jewish Year Book, a Zionist worker, Grand Commander of the Order of Ancient Maccabeans, First Honorary Secretary of the Zionist Commission to Palestine and Vice-President of the English Zionist Federation.

He must therefore participate in all the secret councils of Zionism. He is, moreover, Chairman of the chains stores of Marks and Spencer, where the dumping of Russian and other foreign goods has made possible the underselling of other firms dealing with British manufactured goods, paid according to the tariffs of British labour. It is therefore no wonder that the chain store movement, standardising cheap goods and materials, should be advocated by him.

The views which Mr. Sieff expresses in this document are therefore those which must have had the approval of the Elders of Zion. It must be noted also, lest once again the document be proclaimed the forgery of some Russian Tsarist, that on March 29, 1933, at a dinner of the P. E. P., given at The Savoy Hotel in London, and at which a large number of government officials were present, and subscribed funds, Mr. Sieff made use of most of the contents of Freedom and Planning.

He was followed on the platform by Mr. Kenneth Lindsay, his docile secretary of the P. E. P., who among other achievements, was third chairman of the Labour Club of Oxford University1, Labour candidate for Oxford City at the 1929 elections, and one of the moving spirits in the foundation of the Oxford University Labour Federation in 1921, the aims of which were to make ” labour opinion definitely socialist.” He also spoke in 1926 before twenty-three colleges in New England and the Middle Atlantic States (U. S. A.) under the auspices of The League for Industrial Democracy. We have therefore, in the P. E. P., the plain evidence of Jewish-Fabian alliance.

We shall now quote in full Mr. Sieff’s document, which was privately circulated among the members of the very inner circle of the P. E. P., and was marked ” Confidential.”

Collapsing Civilization
This generation is faced with the threat of a World collapse of modern civilization and the advent of a period comparable with the Dark Ages which followed on the collapse of the Roman Empire in the fifth century A. D.

We are apt to regard such statements as pleasantly scarifying, pardonable exaggerations in the mouths of those who are trying to spur us to action against the very real ills of the times, but not meant quite seriously.

The threat is serious.

Chaos will overtake us if we cannot show intelligence enough to extricate ourselves.

For more than a year now nothing has enabled civilization to keep some sort of course and to ride out the storm except the immense momentum of ordinary economic processes and the inertia of habit and custom. It is the resisting powers of these forces and not human intelligence which have thus far staved off the collapse.

They cannot bring us back prosperity, but they may suffice to carry the world through the immediate crisis. If so, we shall for a time be able to live on our capital, the material capital stored up from past generations, the intellectual and moral capital of men and women trained for civilisation and citizenship. But what chance will the next generation have, if half of them find no employment for their youthful energies, and all of them are living under the oppression of hopelessness and decay ?

What forms collapse will assume no one can foresee. It may not come suddenly. More probably there will be a gradual decline with fleeting periods of revival.

Shrinking Credit and Shrinking Trade
Modern life depends on world-wide interchanges of goods and services. These in turn depend on confidence and credit. Confidence and credit are being progressively impaired. Without them it is impossible to maintain for long not merely existing standards of life but even life itself for a large proportion of the world’s population.

Imagine the plight of Great Britain if the complex economic and financial machinery which supplies the vast bulk of our population with its food were to cease to function. Such a catastrophe is not, it is true, as yet in sight, but this machinery depends wholly on confidence and credit, and with dwindling world trade and social and political trouble growing in other countries the moment is not far off when we shall be unable in these islands to support either present standards or our present aggregate population.

Applied science puts at man’s disposal food-stuffs, raw materials, services of all kinds, in ever growing abundance, enough not alone to maintain existing standards of life but to raise those standards for all far above the highest now enjoyed by any of us.

Only our intelligence and powers of organization and our moral and spiritual capacity to work in mutual co-operation with each other are proving insufficient to meet the growing complexity of the machinery for regulating production, distribution and consumption.

First one, then another vital part of the machine is being thrown out of gear. Increasing friction is being generated in the effort to distribute to the consumer that which man is producing. The quantity of things produced and things consumed declines. The volume of world trade, both of internal trade within each country and still more of international exchanges of goods and services, is progressively lessened. World-Wide Economic Distress

Cracks are appearing everywhere. In China and in India economic distress is both aggravated and concealed by the social and political unrest of which it is the main root.

In South America revolution has become endemic and all but one or two of the most solid countries are financially in default.

In Central and South Eastern Europe financial default is imminent, but that is by itself of little moment, in comparison with the consequent social and political upheaval which will follow. It is open to question whether the populations of Germany and Central Europe can be fed and kept alive next winter and how long any organized Government can control the situation in these countries.

In the U. S. A. loss of confidence is absolute. The strain of material suffering in a population, none too homogeneous, accustomed for generations to rapidly increasing prosperity, may lead to a breakdown of existing institutions and forms of Government. The outcome is unpredictable but the consequences throughout the globe may be catastrophic.

World disorganization, famine, pestilence, and the submergence of our civilization are visible on the horizon.

Not because nature has been niggardly. Not because individual human achievement or capacity have grown less. They have won ever greater and greater triumphs over nature and throughout the material field in the last two generations.

Those triumphs have been won by an ever wider and ever bolder application of the principle of division of labour, till man’s powers of-large scale organization have been overstrained. He can control and adapt the forces of nature, but the task which he has now set himself requires more than that. He has still to learn so to control and adapt his own human nature and so to work together with the human nature of his fellows as to fit them and himself into their proper places in the organization without losing for himself and for them all that makes life worth living.

” Mankind is not clever enough to control the machine which he has created.”

There is no lack of human goodwill and desire to serve our generation. Yet all of us are acutely conscious of the exasperating frustration of our best efforts. We see the evil plight to which we and the world are being reduced, and we confess that for the moment human intelligence seems bankrupt.

A Respite?
This essay cannot concern itself with remedies for the immediate crisis or with the means by which we may hope to restore for a time some semblance of order in the world’s economy. It is necessary to assume here that, whether with or without the help of intelligent human leadership, the economic structure will find within itself enough powers of resistance to secure for us a temporary respite.

The respite will be a short one. We must use it to make a new start or our doom is sealed.

Britain’s Plight
Great Britain and some parts of the British Empire have in some degree improved their own position since last autumn. Absolutely the improvement in Great Britain has been small, though relatively to other countries it is striking.

This achievement is of real value to the world, even though some part of it has been made at the expense of added difficulties for others.

It has been attained thanks to a remarkable demonstration of self-discipline and well-disposed spirit of public service and the sober imperturbability and reasonableness of the British citizen in face of a crisis.

It is in this evidence of British character that the best hope for the future rests.

Britain’s Need of a Prosperous World
Britain cannot, however, prosper in a distressed world. Entirely dependent on external trade for her food and raw materials Britain cannot escape world catastrophe by isolating herself.

Moreover that world-wide loss of control of the machinery of civilization is all too visible in Britain and in British institutions.

If Britain is to save herself and give the world that leadership which is urgently demanded, the first need is for complete reconstruction of our national life on lines fitted for the new deeds of the twentieth century.

Here a fundamental difficulty must be faced. Economic nationalism is no solution. On the contrary it is among the main causes of the world’s troubles. Recovery depends on building up afresh and extending even more widely than before world-wide exchanges of goods and services which everywhere cross national and political boundaries.

The United Kingdom is far too small in area to form to-day an economic unit commensurate with the vast scale of modern commercial and industrial operations.

The aim must always be the widest possible international co-operation.

To assume however that for this reason the first steps must be international would under present conditions result in mere futility. Action, if it is to be both practicable and advantageous, must be taken within the sphere now open to us. Economic reconstruction within that sphere will moreover, at least in the earlier stages, tend to draw other countries within the orbit of returning prosperity.

Our attention must first be directed to the United Kingdom and to those regions, whether within the British Empire or in countries of complementary trade, where political and economic associations offer promising opportunities of effective co-operation.

Every care must however be taken to secure that, in focusing our gaze on our own sphere of action, we do nothing to exclude the wider vision, and that we work gradually for the extension of complementary planned relations over the widest possible area.

The Need for Planning
” Almost all British constitutional safeguards are safeguards against being governed.”

” Communism is a tremendous extension of government and consequently a great encroachment on liberty.”

” Mussolini understood that what was keeping the people slaves was their determination to be what they called free.”

” No real business that had to do positive work could achieve anything on the British Parliamentary system.”

None of these aphorisms of Mr. Bernard Shaw can be rejected as untrue, even though they offer no proof that Communism or Fascism are either necessary or desirable.

Their truth can be illustrated in every branch of our present-day life.

We have allowed the numbers of our feeble-minded to double themselves in the last twenty years.

We have watched the purchasing power of our currency fluctuate wildly and play havoc with our economic life, and have been powerless to help ourselves.

The Road Act of 1910 gave powers both to build motor roads and to prevent riband-building, but we still permit it and spoil our countryside and our motor roads.

Notoriously unsuitable candidates ” get themselves elected ” (this is our habitual way of speaking of what happens) to Parliament and local Councils.

Prime Ministers get nervously worn out in the mere effort to grapple with the everyday business which faces them.

In the Imperial sphere there is practical unanimity as to the need for organizing the Empire as an Economic Family and yet we have the spectacle of the Imperial Conference of 1930.

In the sphere of foreign affairs the nations sign the Kellogg Peace Pact and arm themselves to the teeth.

Or again we keep alive the pretence that Reparations and Inter-Governmental Debts will continue to be paid; and, because we dare not settle these obligations on terms which seem to involve inequitable distribution of the sacrifices involved, we wait with folded hands for the enforced default which will involve even greater inequity and will strike a further blow at the foundations of the world’s economic life. A year ago a broad-minded settlement would have restored economic activity and staved off the financial crisis. To-day, though an essential step on the road to recovery, cancellation of these obligations will by itself be of little avail. Its chief value now would be the evidence it would give of our capacity to reach international agreement.

The Failure of our Political and Economic Machinery
Our political and economic machinery is breaking down. The great fund of individual and corporate goodwill, greater probably than at any previous period of our history, goes to waste, and all our wills are frustrated for want of a large-scale plan of national re-organization.

Neither in politics nor in economics have we grasped that the first and urgent necessity is planning ahead.

Particular projects often of great potential value are put forward in Parliament or elsewhere without any effort being made to relate them to each other or to a national plan, and they either break down or function imperfectly through needless friction engendered by absence of ordered planning.

Frequently where public opinion has become exasperated at its failure to get something done to remedy a defect which everyone recognises as intolerable, our distracted legislators with desperate unanimity unite to pass into law a compromise which is wanted by no one and merely aggravates the evil.

It is a common occurence for a Government to be pursuing two or more mutually inconsistent policies at one and the same time.

Can we save our Freedom?
Mr. Bernard Shaw’s mordant words pose directly the poignant question. Is national reconstruction possible without sacrifice of the essentials of personal and political freedom?

For all their differences Bolshevism and Fascism have two outstanding features in common. Both stress the primary need for conscious forward planning on a national scale. Both repudiate the claims of personal and individual freedom.

In this country we hold fast to the concept of freedom as one of absolute validity.

We know in our hearts that we are in imminent danger of losing both our freedom and our material well-being if we go on drifting.

But if indeed national re-organization has to be bought at the price of losing our freedom, many of us feel that it would be better for humanity to descend once again into the abyss of barbarism and struggle back painfully at some later epoch to a civilization capable of satisfying both its material desires and its spiritual aspirations.

Is the dilemma absolute? Can conscious forward planning of our economic life be reconciled with the essential and over-riding claim of freedom?

Is it true that what we need is more government and a great encroachment on liberty ?

Observe that it is in the sphere of our economic life, in the sphere of material things only, that conscious forward planning is demanded.

May it not be that an unprejudiced re-examination of what we call freedom may reveal unexpected possibilities ?

Our ideal is a nation of free men and women self-disciplined by an active social conscience.


JAN 2011

Ed Miliband’s Speech to the Fabian Society


Record levels of employment, continuous growth for a decade until 2008, low inflation and interest rates, the minimum wage” – Labour’s successes, which the population seems conveniently to ignore. I hope the Labour Party can get this message through to the people, have clear and workable policies on immigration, and economic and social policies that stand up to scrutiny. Labour has to re-group and offer the people an alternative. I’ll not waste my vote on the Lib-Dems again.

andrewshere 11 months ago

Milton Friedman discusses the effects of minimum wage, dispelling the myth that it is a Good Thing.

50 Years of Research on the Minimum Wage:


Dispelling the myth that the mandated minimum wage actually helps the poor, the unskilled or anyone else!

The minimum wage is bad for everybody!


LibertyTruthJustice on 20 Nov 2011

From a bigger, 2-part interview, posted on TheInfowarrior:


@LibertyTruthJustice Agreed! Sutton’s works are never discussed, ever notice? check out “Major Jordan’s Diary” on YT.

We never hear of Quigley’s “Tragedy and Hope” either. Nothing makes the censorship of the Media more clear than the suppression of these competent expos’es.


1tonykirk 1 month ago


fleck140 on 29 May 2011

Speech from the 1960s. Major George Racey Jordan was responsible for fascilitating the transfer of American Arms and Technology to the USSR during WWII under the Lend Lease Program. He kept a detailed diary including Primary Source documentation.

From Major Jordan’s Diary





4 responses to “Waters Flowing Eastward_ Fabianisn

  1. Speech from the 1960s. Major George Racey Jordan was responsible for fascilitating the transfer of American Arms and Technology to the USSR during WWII under the Lend Lease Program. He kept a detailed diary including Primary Source documentation. http://federalexpression.wordpress.com/ book… http://iamthewitness.com/books/Denis.Fahey/Waters.Flowing.Eastward/0.1.Title.htm#Content PUBLISHER’S FOREWORD. PREFACE. PART ONE. ZIONISM. CHAPTER I. The Balfour Declaration CHAPTER II. The Jewish Community: its Spirit and Organization CHAPTER III. New Links between Communities CHAPTER IV. Ginzberg the Interpreter of Jewish Aims CHAPTER V. Zionists and Anti-Zionists CHAPTER VI. Ten Years of Zionism PART TWO. THE PROTOCOLS. CHAPTER I. How the Protocols Came to Russia CHAPTER II. How an American Edition Was Suppressed CHAPTER III. More Attempts at Refutation CHAPTER IV. Text and Commentary of the Protocols Concluding Passage From The Epilogue Of Nilus CHAPTER V. Jacob Brafmann and his Work The Writing on the Wall The Kellogg Palestine Pact PART THREE. SOVIETIZATION OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE AND THE UNITED STATES. CHAPTER I Fabianism CHAPTER II Freedom and Planning SUPPLEMENTS APPENDIX I. The State Of The World APPENDIX II. The Berne Trials APPENDIX III. The Rulers Of Russia GENERAL INDEX. INDEX to PROTOCOLS. HOW THEY DID IT….. The military phase of the war ended with the terroristic demonstration of the atomic bomb; and it is clear in retrospect that hostilities were prolonged, despite the efforts of the Japanese, to enable the dropping of those bombs. On the conclusion of the military phase, the ” threat of war ” phase was substituted without so much as a day’s delay, and the ” administrative adjustments ” referred to by Lord Rothschild were set in train. During the war, arrangements were consolidated to ensure a condition of apparent world famine. We are indebted to an editorial from the London Sunday Express, reprinted in the Sydney Daily Telegraph of February 26, 1946, for a demonstration that the appearance is false. This article reports that world stocks of wheat next June will be 2,000,000 tons more than in June, 1938. Elsewhere it has been reported that Argentina is burning grain in locomotives. Thus the ” threat of war,” plus artificial famine, provide the necessary background for the conversion of governments into dictatorships. In Eastern Europe the process is crude; totalitarian governments have been installed under the guidance of Soviet Russian-trained Russian agents, and are backed by Russian arms. Thus in Jugoslavia Marshal Tito has been installed. Tito is a Josef Broz, or his double; there is some doubt. The real Broz, after early Communist activities in Jugoslavia, took part in the Spanish civil war, then returned to Moscow, where he received special training. In 1941 he returned to Jugoslavia as head of the Secret International Terrorist Organisation (Tanya Internatsionalna Terroristichka Organizatsiya—i.e. T.I.T.O.). There is a report, however, that the real Broz ” disappeared ” under Russian auspices, and was replaced by a double, provided from the same larder. Again, in Poland, a Russian sponsored totalitarian government has been installed under M. Bierut, whose real name is Krasnodebski. This man in 1921 accepted Soviet citizenship. ” Attached at once to the Polish section of the Commintern, he spent several years on theoretical training and practical courses in Moscow. In December, 1924, he was sent to Poland for the first time, and almost at once became one of the leading personalities of the Communist Party. For a time he was organising demonstrations and riots to undermine the institutions of the Polish State.” (The Tablet, July 14,1945). Later he became head of the Polish section of the OGPU. In 1941 ” he was dropped from a Soviet plane into Poland . . . was ordered to take advantage of the German occupation to build a network of Communist organisations, and with their assistance to set up institutions and an administration to rival the Underground Polish authorities acting under the Polish Government in London. In March, 1944, Bierut, accompanied by four other people . . . crossed the frontier into Russia. Upon their arrival at the Soviet capital they introduced themselves as the Polish National Home Council, and the only ‘ genuine representation of the Polish Nation.” The Times, and the socialist Press generally, connived at all this, and at the same time prepared the ground for the Socialist victory at the British General Elections. This achieved, the next step was taken. Without warning, American Lend-Lease supplies were cut off, precipitating an era of intensified austerity which could be held to justify the totalitarian measures of the new Government. A drive for exports took the place of the ” period of crude deflation ” which followed World War I. This is very important. Industry has grown up from its beginnings to serve the multitudinous needs of individuals. But ” export trade,” like war, provides an over-riding objective. It provides a reason, an excuse, for the organisation of industry; and the organisation of industry implies the organisation of the community to serve it. The measures known collectively as Social Security are, in reality, nothing but the administrative arrangements underlying the total organisation of the Community. They were originally developed for that purpose in Germany. The essential principle involved is to prevent the individual accumulating savings, and hence independence, and thus to force him into subjection to the mass of detailed regulations governing every aspect of existence, which are brought into being under special enabling clauses of the main Acts. This is the ” Managerial State—’ All Power to the Official.’ ” Managerial State Legislation—First Section British National Socialist legislation can be seen, in perspective, to fall into two chief divisions. The first comprises Lord Rothschild’s ” administrative adjustments,” and includes the various measures for organisation of industry and community—nationalising of banking and industry, control of investment, and the reduction of all members of the community, except Government officials and bureaucrats (including the managerial class and labour Gauleiters), to a common level, ” the managed.” Included in this is the equalisation of income through controlled devaluation of money (planned inflation), plus taxation. The inflation—i.e., rise in prices—rapidly reduces the real value of professional and small business incomes; this process is offset by wage increases for the low wage earners. The objective is an approximate equalisation of all non-official incomes at a level which will not permit of individual savings. It is important to observe that this level may include, later on, a moderately high standard of living; but that standard will be compulsory, in order to absorb all income. The contingencies which normally would call for savings will be met by so-called ” insurance.” This is not genuine insurance. Contributions are simply taxation, and benefits are the provision of a minimum income, or special services (e.g., medical treatment) under narrowly defined and regulated conditions. Thus independence for the individual will be impossible. So long as he does as he is ordered to do—i.e., remains ” fully employed ” in the various jobs to which he is directed—he will be well-fed, and by degrees adequately housed and amused. If, however, he endeavours to assert his independence, his income will be cut off, and he will have no savings to carry him on, and no free-choice of alternative employment. The propaganda for ” Social Security ” is merely an elaborate disguise for the conditions that obtain in the Army, and it is not improbable that once the total organisation of the community, with the abolition of all independence, is achieved, the disguise will be dropped. But this is chiefly a question of administrative convenience. Managerial State Legislation—Second Section The second division into which legislation falls comprises sanctions—means of enforcing the ” administrative adjustments.” Under this heading are grouped international commitments, propaganda, and direct coercion. International commitments (with which the export drive may be classified) provide a justification, a ” total ” objective. Contributions to UNRRA, maintenance of occupation forces, acquisition of dollars, membership of UNO, etc., etc., are super-national objectives, and hence external to national politics, and hence outside the sphere of the individual. Now quite casual inspection of supernational politics of the present day reveals that it is a mass of lies, murders, corruption, wars and destruction; Satanism. But the reader may call it what he will, so long as he will judge contemporary supernationalism by its fruits. He may find his own interpretation for the expression ” Possessed by the Devil.” Propaganda is quite obviously ” possessed by the Devil.” It is driving Man to destruction. International ” News ” is derived from international news-agencies; but it is not, for the most part, news, but propaganda, and at times of decisive importance, it carries the policy of international Communism. On the principle of admitting freely what is already known, it is now freely enough admi tted that we made a ” mistake ” in supporting Tito. It is now clear, in retrospect, that the Press clamour, lead by The Times, in favour of E.L.A.S. in Greece might have been fatal to the British Empire; and it will become clear that the international propaganda campaign against Franco is in order to promote fatal developments. Under cover of the situation created and maintained by international commitments and propaganda (” the threat of war “), the means of direct coercion are being steadily consolidated. Russia and its satellites are undeniably police-states. In Great Britain, the police forces have been centralised, the Ministry of Social Security—i.e., of central control of the individual—set up, and officials of various departments have been armed with powers of entering private homes on various pretexts, and of securing ‘evidence’ in connection with industrial accidents. Every day sees an increase in the power of the official to mind the individual’s business, with, of course, a reciprocal decrease in the individual’s self-determination. The State of the World is not an Accident. If people are deceived by the ostensible objectives of socialist legislation, they will pay the price. ” By their fruits shall ye know them.” By their fruits: not by the advertisements. It is only atural that these things should be put forward in disguise; and if we cannot distinguish between words and things, we shall perish. Judge by the socialism we have; judge by falling production, rising prices, murderous taxation, increasing anarchy, loathsome austerity; that is policy in practice, the proletarianising of the community. How can the sincere Socialist—the one who merely votes Socialism—believe that the tin-pot mechanism of the Party vote will enable him to overthrow the ultimate possessors of power? Does he seriously think that the ‘ Capitalist’ Press will assist in its own overthrow? On the very premises of the Socialist, Socialism as advocated must be a ‘ Capitalist’ plot for the final enslavement of the worker. But the ‘ Capitalist’ is not the independent business-man; he is the International Capitalist—the Cartelist and the Financier, who control the international news-agencies, and own government debts, and who through those debts hold a lien on the physical assets of every country, and who, under the guise of Socialism, are putting the bailiffs in. It is childish to believe that Socialism has come into power against the will of the ultimate International Power. The state of the world is no accident; for those who will look, it bears every mark of design. The Mark of the Beast. And? F. A. Voight, in Nineteenth Century and After writes: ” The question What can we do ? has many answers, and whoever gives an answer may do so according to his knowledge, his capacity, and his station (there are many, indeed, who give answer beyond all these). But one answer, at least, is possible to the humblest: To bear witness. It is the duty of all who can do so, whether in print, in their letters, or in talk, to withstand or rectify, in however restricted a manner, the cumulative falsification of history perpetrated by the principal media of-publicity in our time . . .” One of the functions of the Press is to mislead public opinion, even informed public opinion, as to the timing of the plot. The public is taught to think that if after all they don’t like ” Socialism,” they can simply change the Government in five years time, and revert to freedom. It is not so. Under cover of party politics, the shackles are being bolted. It is intended that when we find we don’t like what we’ve got, it will be too late to do anything about it. And that won’t take long. ” In this, the gravest crisis of the world’s history, it is essential to realise that the stakes which are being played for are so high that the players on one side, at least, care no more for the immolation of the peoples of a continent than for the death of a sparrow.. . . There is a working coalition between the scum of the underworld and the richest men in the world to murder those from whom alone redemption for the underworld can come, in order that any threat to the power of the financier may be removed. The underworld will be dealt with just as easily as Stalin deals with any opposition, when the underworld has done its job.” (The Social Crediter, February 10, 1945). We warn the decent men of the Left as well as of the Right that if they don’t wake up now their massacre is certain. The Great Powers of the World On February the 18th, Mr. Churchill was closeted in Miami with Mr. Bernard Baruch and his U.S.A. Branch Manager, Mr. James Byrnes. On March the 5th Mr. Churchill gave the signal we have been expecting. From 1942, when Germany double-crossed Russia, until, virtually, March, 1946, the international news-agencies have systematically concealed the development of the situation. Under cover of the ” line ” that we must secure Russia’s co-operation, and therefore must say nothing which might offend her, we have sacrificed the Poles, and connived at the installation of police-governments run by specially trained Russian agents in every country traversed by the Red Armies. The facts that have not been concealed have been explained by the plea that Russia is ” nervous ” (poor mighty child), and therefore entitled, at any cost of human slaughter and suffering, to make her boundaries secure by extending those boundaries by the incorporation of her neighbours and the ” social-engineering ” of their populations. British foreign policy, in particular, appears senseless. Not content with the outcome of the policy of appeasing Germany, we have adopted the identical policy as regards Russia. To try to reconstruct our foreign policy is like trying to piece together a jig-saw puzzle that has a key piece missing; it won’t hang together. And there is the vital clue. There is a piece missing. The essential fact to grasp is that national foreign policies are the resultant of the natural foreign policy plus an international component. And because in general the nature of the international policy deflecting the national policy is unrecognised, foreign policies are essentially unpredictable, and we are plunged into a series of wars which we do not want, and which could certainly have been avoided by a realistic national foreign policy. Wars are actually outmoded, in the sense that modern industrial development provides potential plenty for every nation. The British Empire, however it came into existence, is not now in any sense an aggressive entity. For some time past it has practised the essential requirements of non-aggressiveness—economic and political decentralisation. Yet the British Empire has been chiefly concerned in the last two wars, and is clearly to be involved in the next—hence Mr. Churchill’s speech. It can be stated quite definitely that our continued existence as an Empire, as a set of Nations, and as a culture—all three or any of them—depends on our recognising, and dealing with, the alien policy which deflects our own. The situation is analogous to a chemical experiment in which the results do not conform to those predicted, because of the unsuspected presence of an impurity in the reagents. Discover and eliminate the impurity, and theory and practice coincide. This alien policy has been described and analysed by Major C. H. Douglas in his books The Big Idea, Programme for the Third World War, and The Brief for the Prosecution. It has, as its immediate objective, the elimination of the British Empire and its culture. To describe the situation very briefly: In addition to the recognised Great Powers in the world—let us say, the Big Three—there is a fourth. The fourth Great Power is the Jewish nation, which, because it has no fixed geographical State, is overlooked as such. Nevertheless, it has a Government, which is largely secret, and that Government has a policy. The policy is derived from the mystic philosophy of the Jews—the belief that they are the Chosen People, with a mission to organise and govern the other peoples of the world. Now, since this Power has no country, and no army, its foreign policy must be pursued by other than the methods of direct armed conquest. Its most important weapon is Finance—money-power. Thus at the centre is Jewish State policy. Outside this, as it were, is the organisation of International Finance, which is predominantly, though not entirely, Jewish. International Finance, as such, has a policy; but that policy is derived from, and furthers, Jewish State policy. The technique of the policy is really absurdly simple; in essence it consists of mortgaging property, and foreclosing. The foreclosure is, in practice, the dictation of policy. Thus all governments are in debt, and all have to borrow. The conditions on which they can borrow are conditions dictated by the policy of International Finance, and put forward as principles of “sound finance.” Now financial policy dictates economic policy, and economic policy, as things are, delimits politics so-called. Theoretically, virtually the assets of the whole world are mortgaged to the banking system—i.e., the Money Power; legally, there is no reason why the Money Power should not take possession. But practically it is impossible, because public opinion would revolt; so that some form of police force to prevent revolt must be established. So that over and above the purely financial technique by which the Money Power has established its claim to ownership of the world, on behalf of its hidden masters, politics have been controlled so as to lead to a world police-force. This is being achieved by the elimination of nations through wars, and the subordination of the remaining nations to their bureaucracies through Socialism. In 1942, Major Douglas wrote: “Socialism, or to give it its correct name, Monopoly, is not a production system, which is exactly what one would expect from its origins.” The idea so skilfully inculcated that confiscation of property will assist in the distribution of wealth is, of course, completely without foundation. Socialism is a restriction system, as any examination of Socialistic practice in the Trades Unions will confirm, and it has two well-defined principles—centralisation of power, both economic and political, and espionage. ” That is to say, every advance towards Socialism is an advance towards the Police State . . .” (The Big Idea.) Nearly a year after the end of the war, conditions in Great Britain are much worse than during the war. This means, not that Socialism has failed, but that it is succeeding. It is doing what its true authors intended it should do— reduce the people to a condition of penury and slavery. Politics and economics are both predominantly in the service of the secret Fourth Great Power. Now the operation of this fourth major foreign policy in the world must normally be to call forth a ” healthy reaction,” both economic and political, to it. But as the policy is a secret policy, the effect is simply a confusion of policies, until the threat is so obvious that a distinct policy does emerge. The British policy towards the threat of Russia can be seen more and more clearly to have been absurd; but equally, the threat is becoming so obvious that only one British policy is becoming possible. But, of course, immense damage has been done. The main strategy of the Fourth Power is destruction of the national institutions of the other three Powers from within, and the manipulation of the three Powers into conflict with each other. As the fourth Power ” owns ” each of the others, it will dominate the world when one of the three dominates the world. But, since Russia already has a developed secret-police system, and is militaristic, Russia may be billed to eliminate the other two. But in the meantime the next phase is apparently intended to be the destruction of the British Empire by Russia. To this end, by paralysis of British resistance, the strategic position of Russia has been enormously strengthened, while the economic position of Great Britain has been ruined. Food and coal reserves have gone, industry has been wrecked by interference and the threat of nationalisation, and morale has been virtually destroyed by a combination of Utopian but impossible promises, and austerity. Moreover, Russia has an enormous fifth-column in all countries of the British-Empire, and the integrity of the Armed Forces has been sapped by the propaganda of the Services’ ” educational ” organisations. We have been manoeuvred into a position where it is too late to do anything about the military situation. That was intended. If anything can be done about the general situation, it can be done only by a direct challenge to the power of the Fourth State. The genuine nationals of the British Empire and the United States will have to eliminate the power and the policy of the International Jew. Once that is done—and only if it is done—Russia may be stayed. But God knows how little time remains. Only a few weeks ago, there was but an occasional bare whisper in the daily Press that Russia just conceivably, in certain circumstances—if we offended her by saying so, for example—might become a threat. We were told just enough to warn us of the danger of saying more. But that phase has passed. Mr. Baruch has given the ” go ” signal to Mr. Churchill, and Mr. Churchill has passed it on through all the modern resources of controlled propaganda. Even the fatal words ” appeasement ” and ” Munich ” are once more becoming common currency, and with the aid of little daily doses of instruction, the Common Man is rapidly becoming an expert in foreign affairs, and soon should be able to realise that the Third World War is on the way. Marxist Strategy and Tactics The Russian Government is the exponent of a fairly highly elaborated dogma derived from a philosophy known as dialectical and historical materialism. The doctrines involved in this dogma have various origins and histories, but their modern expression began with their formulation as a system by Karl Marx (Mordecai) and Frederick Engels, and their extension by Vladimir Lenin (Ulianov). The current system is generally known as Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism has, however, been further adapted by Stalin, whose pronouncements are surely authoritative. Russia is governed through the hierarchy of the Communist Party. Party membership is absolutely conditional on a thorough grounding in Marxism-Leninism, and promotion in the hierarchy requires a high degree of ” theoretical” knowledge— i.e., knowledge of the theory of Marxism-Leninism. The over-all policy pursued by Soviet Russia is, of course, derived from the beliefs so thoroughly inculcated. According to Marxism-Leninism, the real social structure of the world, under Capitalism, consists of its class structure, and nation-States are quite secondary. That is to say, men are united primarily by their classes, so that to belong to the proletarian, or ” toiling masses,” class, over-rides considerations of nationality. The proletarian class is considered to be a world fact; the class is homogeneous, and opposed in interest and outlook throughout the world to all other classes which it will, ” step by step,” hurl from power. The picture is, therefore, that of two forces like two armies, radically opposed throughout the world. Because of the inherent defects in the Capitalist system which gives the Capitalists and their sub-classes their power, sooner or later, and somewhere or other, the proletarian force must ” break through” the line of the Capitalist forces. Once this happens, the whole nature of the struggle is changed, for the victorious segment of the proletariat becomes the leader of the rest of the world-proletariat, and strategy alters accordingly. Stalin describes the strategy of this stage, which was reached with the October Revolution in Russia, quite explicitly: ” Objective: to consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country, using it as a base for the overthrow of imperialism in all countries. The revolution is spreading beyond the confines of one country; the period of world revolution has commenced. The main forces of the revolution: the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country, the revolutionary movement of the proletariat in all countries. Main reserves: the semi-proletarian and small-peasant masses in all developed countries. Direction of the main blow: isolation of the petty-bourgeois democrats, isolation of the parties of the Second International, which constitute the main support of the policy of compromise with imperialism. Plan for the disposition of forces: alliance of the proletarian revolution with the liberation movement in the colonies and the dependent countries.” (Foundation of Leninism.) (Italics in original. Our paragraphs.) ” The fundamental question of revolution is power.” (Lenin). In order to achieve the maximum power, it is necessary for the first country achieving the initial victory of the proletariat to organise itself in such a way as to obtain the greatest power. That is to say, it must organise itself on totalitarian lines under the direction of a General Staff under a Chief of the General Staff; in short, it must become a fully organised army, in order to play its necessary part in the continuation of the world revolution. This is the true and only meaning of the term “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Jokes about “dictatorship over the proletariat” are entirely beside the point. “Dictatorship of the proletariat” is purely and simply a technical term in the vocabulary of Marxism-Leninism, and relates to the strategic concept of having a properly organized force available to assist revolution as it occurs elsewhere in the world. “The revolution in the victorious country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity but as an aid, as a means of hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries.” (Stalin). Similarly, the terms “petty-bourgeois democrats” and “parties of the Second International” refer to what we call “Labour” or “Labour-Socialism.” The formation of such groups is regarded by the theoreticians as a natural phenomenon in the development of the world revolution. Their role is to demonstrate to the oppressed toiling masses that only revolution can succour them! and one of the first tasks of the victorious revolution must be to liquidate these “compromisers with imperialism” who have committed the crime of betraying the revolution, and who are rivals for the leadership of the proletariat. The appearance of these groups is only a demonstration of the progress of the general revolution, which, according to Lenin, would take some decades to run its course, during which the deepening crisis would be marked by depression, unemployment, and war, as well as by such “petty bourgeois expedients” as Fabianism and Social Democracy. All this would have to be, however; the first country to achieve revolution could do no more than help to intensify the crisis, act as a beacon to the toiling masses, and prepare for the decisive moment by building up its own strength and organisation. While the strategy of Marxism-Leninism remains steady and consistent through this period (i.e., the period between the Russian Revolution and World Revolution), tactics, which are largely the concern of the Communist Parties in various countries, vary with “the ebb and flow” of the developing situation in those countries. Any criticism of the contradictions of Communist activities therefore misses the point entirely; there is no variation in strategy, which is centred in the General Staff (Politbureau) in Russia, and which is consistently preparing for general revolution; but it is in the very nature of tactics to vary with the fluctuating fortunes of the struggle. For example, the recent Iron Workers’ strike is said to have resulted in a defeat for the Communists. That is not so. The objective of the strike was to reduce the reserves of critical materials—iron and coal—in order to hasten on the ” nation-wide crisis,” and ” weaken the Government”; and in that it succeeded. The tactics were designed to lead the workers in and out of the strike, covering both manoeuvres with suitable slogans and propaganda. From the strategical point of view it was essential that the strike should ” fail ” at a point short of a full crisis. The strategical objective of all such tactics at present is to worsen the lot of the community, and increase the difficulties of the ” petty-bourgeois ” (compromising) Government. The recent Coal Report is striking evidence of the strategical success of tactics as applied to the coal industry. It must be admitted that the Marxist-Leninist theory appears to find practically complete confirmation in the state of the world. The end of the ” Imperialist war ” (into which Russia was, despite her detachment, drawn) finds the ” Capitalist crisis ” still more intensified, and ” petty-bourgeois governments ” still less able to cope with it. The changes ” demanded ” by the oppressed masses are quite clearly not alleviating their condition, and the various factions of ” the ruling classes” (including Labour parties) are at loggerheads. A fresh outbreak of revolution is anticipated in Greece, and local tactics are being directed accordingly. France is highly unstable, and would detonate into revolution if fresh civil war could be promoted in Spain. The British Empire is distracted by ” liberation movements in colonies and dependent countries ” and by threats to Empire security as in Persia and Palestine. Financial Rules favouring Revolution can be changed There is, however, another side to the picture. The vital and fundamental premiss of the Marxist-Leninist theory is the automatic and inevitable nature of the ” contradiction ” in Capitalist economy. The Capitalist does not oppress and exploit the Worker because he likes it, but because he cannot avoid it. He, like the Worker, is caught up in a System he cannot control. As Lenin emphasised, Revolution would be impossible unless a general crisis arose. The central aspect of the Capitalist system is money. The Capitalist ” produces for profit,” and profit is taken in money. That is to say, the vital aspect of Capitalist economy is in its relation to the financial system and the financial system itself consists of certain ” principles,” or rules, or laws; for example, the principles of ” sound finance.” Thus the Capitalist conducts his business and makes his profits according to the rules which govern the use of money. The Marxist-Leninist position therefore rests ultimately on the question of those rules. Are those rules in the nature of things, genuine ” laws ” like the laws of physics; or are they conventions, man-made ? On the hypothesis that the rules are laws, and therefore unchangeable, it follows that the Capitalist is helpless, and faultless; the case for his liquidation hardly rests on a very satisfactory moral basis. But it also follows that no improvement is possible, even in Russia’s case, unless the use of money is abolished; but Russia has not abolished money, and claims an improvement; in point of fact, Russia has modified the rules. In general, however, it is quite clear that the rules are modified constantly, not only by Russia, but everywhere. Whether or not a country is on the gold standard is a case in point—it is the result of a decision. But the ” laws ” of a strict gold standard are different from the ” laws ” of a dollar or sterling standard. Thus the Marxist-Leninist strategy is applicable to a situation that has its origin in the results of the operation of rules of finance. Who is responsible for those rules ? Although there is some overlapping of personnel, especially in the case of Big Business and the cartels, through interlocking directorates, it is quite clear that the production and the financial systems are separate entities. It is also clear that the financial system is far more highly centralised than is the production system. In practically every country there is now a Central Bank, which has well-defined functions, including especially the regulation of the volume of money. But these Central Banks in turn come under a super-Central Bank, the Bank of International Settlements, though at the moment there is some indication that this Bank’s function will be transferred to the World Bank working in co-operation with the International Fund. However that may be, it is the case that there is a world centralised financial system. In the case of industry—the production system—on the other hand, such world centralisation as there is relates only to specific industries, notably the chemical industry, while the greater part of industry is relatively independent, and unco-ordinated. Now in the nature of things an unco-ordinated industry cannot impose a consistent policy on centralised world finance; but, by setting up and maintaining the rules of the system, finance can, and does, impose a policy on industry. Broadly, the rules are in the system of accounting, and in the necessity of making a financial profit, according to the accounting conventions. Marxist-Leninist strategy is derived from and dependent on an intensifying crisis; and that crisis derives from the financial rules under which industry is conducted. If the crisis disappeared, Communism would retrogress. Now as long as finance and production are lumped together under the term ” Capitalism,” there appears to be no escape from the necessity for Communism. But finance and production are not identities; they are entirely separate systems. To fail to discriminate, of course, adds to the confusion, for what is required is not any re-organisation of industry, but an alteration in the financial rules which impose a policy on industry. An alteration in these rules was proposed by the Government of Alberta, and was opposed by financial interests; not only opposed, but prevented. Further than this, there is documentary evidence that International Financiers financed the Russian Revolution. Surely, now, the nature of the situation is plain. The greatest power in the world is wielded by International Finance, which directs its policy to produce an intensifying crisis as a result of which World Revolution is promoted, the effect of which would be a world dictatorship through, in the first place, the agency of Russia. The purpose is to disposses every individual of any form of property which could confer independence, and centralise all ownership in institutions themselves centralised under a World State. Misunderstanding of this situation at this stage only accelerates our progress to disaster. It must be realised that every effort is made to maintain the fiction of class-war on the one hand, and the threat of Russia as a great national power on the other. As a result, perfectly well-meaning, sincere and able politicians constantly make the situation worse. Russia is not a ” Great Power ” in the national sense; she does not want war or territorial aggrandisement in the ordinary sense. Russia is a reservoir of strength and highly-trained personnel awaiting, expecting, and promoting revolution which she is prepared to back. Every intensification of the crisis brings the critical moment nearer; the greater the confusion, the easier her task. Therefore the apparent threat of war aids her, and the confusion as to her policy—i.e., whether she just wants to secure her boundaries, or whether she is following Hitler’s path of aggression—makes the situation more favourable for revolution. We can now put the whole jig-saw puzzle together. The responsible agents in the world are the men controlling the international financial system. Through financial power— the indebtedness of governments and institutions to them— they can either dictate or heavily influence policy. Their efforts are directed along two main lines: the maintenance of such financial rules as must lead to a world crisis, and the sponsoring of the Marxist-Leninist theory and its exponents to take advantage of the crisis to institute a World Police State. Financial power has enabled them to secure control of all the main channels of publicity, especially the international news-agencies through which a bias can be imparted to the presentation of world news so as to intensify the crisis. During the war, they secured the setting up of UNRRA whose purpose is to restrict the distribution of food, and lead to famine in Europe. Through such institutions as the London School of Economics and Political and Economic Planning, as well as the more frankly Socialist organisations, they have disseminated doctrines which have gradually resulted in the institution of a system of bureaucratic socialism in Great Britain which has strangled private initiative and paralysed recovery from the ravages of war, and transferred power from Parliament to a junta concealed behind the bureaucracy. Europe has now been brought to near-detonation point. Its peoples are being driven to desperation by gross food-shortage, and lack of recovery from the desolation of war. Greece and France are in a highly unstable condition, and might be precipitated into revolution at any time. Whenever this happens, Russia is waiting to come to the assistance of the ” victorious proletariat” and to set up the Federated States of Soviet Europe. In the commotion, the life-lines of the British empire, already frayed, will be completely severed, leaving Great Britain easy prey for either ” liquidation ” as ” reactionary petty-bourgeois ” or its own revolution. Once this strategic situation is grasped, it becomes clear that the well-meaning words of, say, Mr. Menzies, are like petrol as a fire-extinguisher. It is also clear why Mr. Baruch, the international financier, gave Mr. Churchill the go-ahead signal, providing Russia was misrepresented as a military menace. The situation is indeed formidable. Now, obviously a strategy opposed to a misconception can do nothing but worsen the situation. That is to say, as long as our policy is based on the assumption that Russia is a potential aggressor in the ordinary sense, every move is likely only to lead to irrevocable disaster. And similarly, every attempted denunciation of, or opposition to, the tactics, as such of the local Communists only furthers their strategy, because it helps to intensify the crisis. The vital necessity is rapid amelioration of the crisis, combined with frank exposure of the real situation. We most earnestly appeal to those with the potential power to deal with the situation to examine what we say impartially, and to realise that a great deal of what they believe and take for granted is the result of years of the most careful and subtle propaganda; that certain courses of action, unorthodox in appearance, are practicable and urgently necessary.1 — 1. The full text of this Article can be had from The Australian Social Crediter, Box 3266, Sydney, N.S.W. · Previous · Contents · Next · http://iamthewitness.com Surely, now, the nature of the situation is plain. The greatest power in the world is wielded by International Finance, which directs its policy to produce an intensifying crisis as a result of which World Revolution is promoted, the effect of which would be a world dictatorship through, in the first place, the agency of Russia. The purpose is to disposses every individual of any form of property which could confer independence, and centralise all ownership in institutions themselves centralised under a World State. UN… http://iamthewitness.com/books/Denis.Fahey/Waters.Flowing.Eastward/Appendix.1_The.State.Of.The.World.htm DOUGLAS REED The League to Enforce Peace Remember that it was Fabians that brought about the league of nations- later to become the UN. At the same moment in 1917 when the two kindred forces from Russia, revolutionary-Communism and revolutionary-Zionism, emerged into the full open, the third secret purpose of the war, the one of which they were the instruments, also was revealed. This was the project for a “federation of the world” to take over “the management of human affairs” and to rule by force. The masses then (as in the Second War, twenty-five years later) were being egged on to destroy a “madman in Berlin” on this very ground, that he sought to rule the world by force. In England Mr. Eden Philpotts (one of many such oracles then and in the next war) thundered: “You thought to grasp the world; but you shall keep its curses only, crowned upon your brow …” and that was the universal cry. Yet the secret plan promoted in the West was equally one to “grasp the world by force” and to put new “warlords” over it. It was merely dressed in other words. What was reactionary Prussian militarism in Germany was one of Mr. House’s “advanced ideas” in Washington; what was megalomaniac ambition in the Kaiser was an enlightened concept of “a new world order” in London. The politicians of the West became professional dissimulators. Even Disraeli could not foresee in 1832 ( “The practice of politics in the East may be defined by one word: dissimulation”) that this would become the definition of political practice in the West in the 20th Century; but this happened when Western political leaders, by supporting Zionism and the world-revolution, yielded to the prompting of Asiatics; their acts took on an Asiatic duplicity in place of native candour. Strangely, Mr. Woodrow Wilson, the most compliant of them all, at the start rebelled most fretfully against the secret constraints. He tried, as has been shown, to declare that “the causes and objects of the war are obscure,” and when this was forbidden by Mr. House, still avowed that the belligerents on both sides pursued “the same” objects. He went further at the very start of his presidency, when he wrote, “It is an intolerable thing that the government of the Republic should have got so far out of the hands of the people; should have been captured by interests which are special and not general. We know that something intervenes between the people of the United States and the control of their own affairs at Washington.” Presumably he learned the nature of these “interests” and this “control,” and the galling knowledge may have caused his collapse (and that of Mr. Roosevelt in the later generation). Nevertheless, he was used to launch the plan for setting up “a federation of the world,” based on force. The idea was “oozed into his brain” by others; the phrase is used by Mr. House’s biographer to describe the method by which Mr. House prompted the actions of other men (and by which his own were prompted). In November 1915, when the American people were still ardent for the president 284 who was keeping them out of the war, Mr. House instructed him: “We must throw the influence of this nation in behalf of a plan by which international obligations must be kept and maintained and in behalf of some plan by which the peace of the world may be maintained.” This was always the sales-talk: that “the plan” would “maintain world peace.” Mr. House had long been discussing the plan with Sir Edward Grey (Mr. Asquith’s Foreign Secretary; he became blind in 1914 but in a moment of spiritual clairvoyance used the words which have become truer ever since, “The lights are going out all over Europe”). Sir Edward Grey was captivated by “the plan,” and wrote to Mr. House, “International law has hitherto had no sanction; the lesson of this war is that the Powers must bind themselves to give it sanction.” “Sanction” was the euphemism used by the dissimulators to avoid alarming the masses by the sound of “war” or “force.” The dictionary definition, in such a context, is “a coercive measure,” and the only means of coercion between nations is, ultimately, war: no “sanction” can be effective unless it is backed by that threat. Therefore Sir Edward Grey thought war could be ended by making war. He was an incorruptible but apparently deluded man; the originators of the great “idea” knew what they meant (and in our day this also has been revealed). By 1916 Mr. House had instructed Mr. Wilson as to his duty and in May the president publicly announced support for “the plan” at a meeting of a new body candidly called “The League to Enforce Peace.” Mr. Wilson knew nothing of its nature: “it does not appear that Woodrow Wilson studied seriously the programme of the League to Enforce Peace” (Mr. House’s Private Papers). This was a reincarnation of the earlier “League to enforce peace” which (as Lord Robert Cecil had reminded Mr. House) “really became a league to uphold tyranny.” In 1916 the name gave away the game; American opinion was not then ready to walk into so obvious a trap. Senator George Wharton Pepper recalls: “A heavily-financed organization aptly entitled ‘The League F Peace’ was making our task easier by emphasizing, as its title indicated, that the Covenant” (of the League of Nations) “was intended to be made effective by force …Our constant contention, in opposition to theirs, was that the appeal to force was at the best futile and at the worst dangerous … I contrasted the certain futility of an appeal to international force with the possible hopefulness of reliance upon international conference, and declared myself favourable to any association of the latter type and unalterably opposed to a league which was based on the former.” The dissimulators soon dropped the name, “The League to Enforce Peace,” but the “plan,” which produced “The League of Nations,” transparently remained the same: it was one to transfer the control of national armies to some super-national committee which could use them for “the management of human affairs” in ways serving its own special ends, and that has continued the motive to the present day. As in the earlier case of Zionism, President Wilson was 285 committed long before the crucial moment (by his public declaration of May 1916) and as soon as America was in the war (April 1917) announced that it was involved in an undertaking to set up “a new international order”; this statement was made at the moment of the first revolution in Russia and of the preparation of the Balfour Declaration. Thus the three great “plans” moved together into the West, and this was the project which was to crown the work of the other two. Its basic principle was the destruction of nation-states and nationhood so that it gave _expression, in modern form, to the ancient conflict between the Old Testament and the New, between the Levitical Law and the Christian message. The Torah-Talmud is the only discoverable, original source of this idea of “destroying nations”; Mr. House thought it almost impossible to trace any “idea” to its fount, but in this case the track can be followed back through the centuries to 500 BC, and it is nowhere obliterated during those twenty-five hundred years. If before that time anybody in the known world had made this “destructive principle” into a code and creed they and it have faded into oblivion. The idea contained in the Torah-Talmud has gone unbroken through all the generations. The New Testament rejects it and speaks of “the deception of nations,” not of their destruction. Revelation foretells a day when this process of deception of nations shall end. Those who seek to interpret prophecy might very well see in The League to Enforce Peace, under its successive aliases, the instrument of this “deception,” doomed at the end to fail. Mr. House having decided, and Mr. Wilson having declared, that “a new international order” must be established, Mr. House (according to Mr. Howden) set up a body known as “The Inquiry” to draft a plan. Its head was his brother-in-law, Dr. Sidney Mezes (then president of the College of the City of New York), and its secretary a Mr. Walter Lippmann (then writing for The New Republic). A Dr. Isaiah Bowman (then director of the American Geographical Society) gave “personal advice and assistance.” The group of men placed in charge of The Inquiry therefore was predominantly Jewish (though in this case not Russian-Jewish: this might indicate the true nature of the superior authority indicated by Dr. Kastein’s allusion to “a Jewish international”) and Jewish inspiration may thus reasonably be seen in the plan which it produced. This (says Mr. Howden) was a draft “Convention for a League of Nations” to which Mr. House put his signature in July 1918: “President Wilson was not, and never pretended to be, the author of the Covenant.” Here, then, are the origins of the League of Nations. The Peace Conference loomed ahead when Mr. House prepared to launch this “new world order,” and its first acts pointed to the identity of the controlling-group behind the Western governments. Zionism and Palestine (issues unknown to the masses when the 1914-1918 war began) were found to be high, if not paramount among the matters to be discussed at the conference which ended it. 286 President Wilson, for this reason, seems to have known moments of exaltation between long periods of despondency. Rabbi Stephen Wise, at his side, depicted the Palestinean undertaking in such terms that the president, entranced, soliloquised, “To think that I, a son of the manse, should be able to help restore the Holy Land to its people.” While he thus contemplated himself in the mirror of posterity the rabbi beside him compared him with the Persian King Cyrus, who had enabled the exiled Jews of his land to return to Jerusalem.” King Cyrus had allowed native Judahites, if they wished, to return to Judah after some fifty years; President Wilson was required to transplant Judaized Chazars from Russia to a land left by the original Jews some eighteen centuries before. Across the Atlantic Dr. Weizmann made ready for the Peace Conference. He was then evidently one of the most powerful men in the world, a potentate (or emissary of potentates) to whom the “premier-dictators” of the West made humble obeisance. At a moment in 1918 when the fate of England was in the balance on the stricken Western Front an audience of the King of England was postponed. Dr. Weizmann complained so imperiously that Mr. Balfour at once restored the appointment; save for the place of meeting, which was Buckingham Palace, Mr. Weizmann seems in fact to have given audience to the monarch. During the Second World War the Soviet dictator Stalin, being urged by the Western leaders to take account of the influence of the Pope, asked brusquely, “How many divisions has the Pope?” Such at least was the anecdote, much retold in clubs and pubs, and to simple folk it seemed to express essential truth in a few words. Dr. Weizmann’s case shows how essentially untrue it was. He had not a single soldier, but he and the international he represented were able to obtain capitulations never before won save by conquering armies. He disdained the capitulants and the scene of his triumphs alike. He wrote to Lady Crewe, “We hate equally anti-semites and philo-semites.” Mr. Balfour, Mr. Lloyd George and the other “friends” were philo-semites of the first degree, in Dr. Weizmann’s meaning of the word, and excelled themselves in servience to the man who despised them. As to England itself, Dr. Weizmann two decades later, when he contemplated the wild beasts in the Kruger National Park, soliloquised, “It must be a wonderful thing to be an animal on the South African game reserve; much better than being a Jew in Warsaw or even in London.” In 1918 Dr. Weizmann decided to inspect his realm-elect. When he reached Palestine the German attack in France had begun, the depleted British armies were reeling back, and “most of the European troops in Palestine were being withdrawn to reinforce the armies in France.” At such a moment he demanded that the foundation stone of a Hebrew University be laid with all public ceremony. Lord Allenby protested that “the Germans are almost at the gates of Paris!” Dr. Weizmann replied that this was “only one episode.” Lord Allenby obdured; Dr. Weizmann persisted; Lord Allenby under duress referred to Mr. Balfour and was at once ordered by cable to obey. With great panoply of staff 287 officers, troops and presented arms (disturbed only by the sounds of distant British-Turkish fighting) Dr. Weizmann then held his ceremony on Mount Scopus. . (I remember those days in France. Even half a million more British soldiers there would have transformed the battle; a multitude of lives would have been saved, and the war probably ended sooner. The French and British ordeal in France made a Zionist holiday in Palestine). When the war at last ended, on November 11, 1918, none other than Dr. Weizmann was at luncheon the sole guest of Mr. Lloyd George, whom he found “reading the Psalms and near to tears.” Afterwards the Zionist chieftain watched from historic Ten Downing Street as the prime minister disappeared, borne shoulder high by a mafficking mob towards a Thanksgiving service in Westminster Abbey. Masses and “managers”; did any among the crowd notice the high, domed head, with bearded face and heavy-lidded eyes watching from the window of Ten Downing Street? Then Dr. Weizmann led a Zionist delegation to the Peace Conference of 1919 where “the new world order” was to be set up. He informed the august Council of Ten that “the Jews had been hit harder by the war than any other group”; the politicians of 1919 made no demur to this insult to their millions of dead. However, a remonstrant Jew, Mr. Sylvain Levi of France, at the last moment tried to instil prudence in them. He told them: First, that Palestine was a small, poor land with an existing population of 600,000 Arabs, and that the Jews, having a higher standard of life than the Arabs, would tend to dispossess them; second, that the Jews who would go to Palestine would be mainly Russian Jews, who were of explosive tendencies; third, that the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine would introduce the dangerous principle of Jewish dual loyalties. These three warnings have been fulfilled to the letter, and were heard with hostility by the Gentile politicians assembled at the Peace Conference of 1919. Mr. Lansing, the American Secretary of State, at once gave M. Lévi his quietus. He asked Dr. Weizmann, “What do you mean by a Jewish national home?” Dr. Weizmann said he meant that, always safeguarding the interests of non-Jews, Palestine would ultimately become “as Jewish as England is English.” Mr. Lansing said this absolutely obscure reply was “absolutely clear,” the Council of Ten nodded agreement, and M. Levi, like all Jewish remonstrants for twenty-five centuries, was discomfited. (He was only heard at all to maintain a pretence of impartial consideration; Rabbi Wise, disquietened by “the difficulties we had to face in Paris,” had already made sure of President Wilson’s docility. Approaching the president privately, he said, “Mr. President, World Jewry counts on you in its hour of need and hope,” thus excommunicating M. Levi and the Jews who thought like him. Mr. Wilson, placing his hand on the rabbi’s 288 shoulder, “quietly and firmly said, ‘Have no fear, Palestine will be yours.’”) One other man tried to avert the deed which these men, with frivolity, were preparing. Colonel Lawrence loved Semites, for he had lived with the Arabs and roused them in the desert against their Turkish rulers. He was equally a friend of Jews (Dr. Weizmann says “he has mistakenly been represented as anti-Zionist”) and believed that “a Jewish homeland” (in the sense first given to the term, of a cultural centre) could well be incorporated in the united Arab State for which he had worked. Lawrence saw in Paris that what was intended was to plant Zionist nationalism like a time-bomb among a clutter of weak Arab states, and the realization broke him. Mr. David Garnett, who edited his Letters , says, “Lawrence won his victories without endangering more than a handful of Englishmen and they were won, not to add subject provinces to our empire, but that the Arabs whom he had lived with and loved should be a free people, and that Arab civilization should be reborn.” That was Lawrence’s faith during his “Revolt in the Desert,” and what the men who sent him to Arabia told him. When the Paris Conference began he was “fully in control of his nerves and quite as normal as most of us” (Mr. J.M. Keynes). He arrived believing in President Wilson’s pledge (speech of the Fourteen Points, January 8, 1918), “The nationalities under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely independent opportunity of autonomous development.” He could not know that these words were false, because Mr. Wilson was secretly committed to Zionism, through the men around him. After Dr. Weizmann’s reply to Mr. Lansing, and its approval by the Council of Ten, the betrayal became clear to Lawrence and he showed “the disillusion and the bitterness and the defeat resulting from the Peace Conference; he had complete faith that President Wilson would secure self-determination for the Arab peoples when he went to the Peace Conference; he was completely disillusioned when he returned.”(Mr. Garnett) Lawrence himself later wrote, “We lived many lives in those whirling campaigns” (in the desert) “never sparing ourselves any good or evil; yet when we achieved and the new world dawned the old men came out again and took from us our victory and remade it in the likeness of the former world they knew … I meant to make a new nation, to restore to the world a lost influence, to give twenty millions of Semites the foundations on which to build an inspired dream-palace of their national thoughts.” Lawrence, who was broken by this experience, was then among the most famous men in the world. Had he joined the dissimulators hardly any rank or honour would have been refused him. He threw up his rank, and away his decorations, and tried from shame even to lose his identity; he enlisted under an assumed name in the lowest rank of the Royal Air Force, where he was later discovered by an assiduous newspaper man. This last phase of his life, and the 289 motor-bicycle accident which ended it, have a suicidal look (resembling the similar phase and end of Mr. James Forrestal after the Second War) and he must be accounted among the martyrs of this story. The leading public men were agreed to promote the Zionist adventure through the “international world order” which they were about to found, at any cost in honour and human suffering. In nearly all other questions they differed, so that, the war hardly ended, reputations began bursting like bubbles and friendships cracking like plaster, in Paris. Some breach occurred between President Wilson and his “second personality, independent self” (a similar, mysterious estrangement was to sever President Roosevelt and his other self, Mr. Harry Hopkins, at the end of another war). Mr. House was at his zenith. Prime ministers, ministers, ambassadors and delegates besieged him at the Hotel Crillon; in a single day he gave forty-nine audiences to such high notables. Once the French Prime Minister, M. Clemenceau, called when Mr. Wilson was with Mr. House; the president was required to withdraw while the two great men privately conferred. Perhaps humiliation at last broke Mr. Woodrow Wilson; he was stricken by mortal illness in Paris (as Mr. Franklin Roosevelt at Yalta, though Mr. Wilson survived rather longer). Apparently the two never saw or communicated with each other again! Mr. House merely recorded, “My separation from Woodrow Wilson was and is to me a tragic mystery, a mystery that now can never be dispelled for its explanation lies buried with him.” The illusions of power were dissolving. These men were never truly powerful, because they acted as the instruments of others. They already look wraithlike in the annals, and if the squares and boulevards named after them still bear their names, few remember who they were. Mr. Wilson returned to America and soon died. Mr. House before long was lonely and forgotten in the apartment in East 35th Street. Mr. Lloyd George found himself in the political wilderness and was only able to complete the ruin of a once-great Liberal party; within a decade he found himself at the head of four followers. Mr. Balfour, for a few more years, absent-mindedly haunted Saint James’s Park. They were not able to accomplish all that their mentors wished. Shaken by the violence of American objections, Mr. Wilson “absolutely declined to accept the French demand for the creation of an international force that should operate under the executive control of the League.” The American Constitution (the president suddenly recollected) did not permit of any such surrender of sovereignty. Thus the worst was averted, in that generation. The secret men, who continued to be powerful when these “premier-dictators” and pliable “administrators” were shorn of their semblance of power, had to wait for the Second World War to get their hands on the armies of the nation-states. Then they achieved their “League to enforce peace” almost (but still not quite) in the fullness of despotic 290 power coveted by them. In 1919 they had to content themselves with a modest first experiment: The League Of Nations. The United States would not even join it; the masses of America, disquietened by the results of the war and instinctively striving to regain the safe haven of “no foreign entanglements,” would have none of it. Britain joined, but under other prime ministers than Mr. Lloyd George would not hand over control of its armies. The way to the kind of “new world order” envisaged by Mr. House and his prompters was blocked for the time being. Nevertheless a way was found, through the League of Nations, to effect one fateful, and possibly fatal breach in British sovereignty. The authority of this “League of Nations,” whatever it amounted to, was used to cover the use of British troops as a bodyguard for the Zionists intending to seize Palestine. The device employed to give this mock-legal air to the deed was called “the mandate,” and I have earlier shown where it was born. By means of it the League of Nations was able to install the Zionists from Russia in Arabia, where they revealed the “explosive tendencies” foretold by M. Sylvain Levi in 1919 and apparent to all today, in 1956. This was the sole, enduring accomplishment of the “new world order” set up in 1919 and by the ancient test, Cui bono?, the authorship of this “idea” may be judged. The story of “The mandate” (and of a man who tried to avert it) therefore forms the next chapter in this narrative. Next Previous Home Contents Names http://www.controversyofzion.info/Controversybook/Controversybook_eng_33.htm THEY WILL SAC
  2. The Mother’s admonishment to the daughter about how a person should not pay attention to carnal desires but should nourish the body on a moderate diet of necessities, and about how a person should stand by his or her body but not in the body.

    The Mother speaks: “You should be like a bride standing before the bed-curtain, ready to do as the bridegroom wishes as soon as he calls. This bed-curtain is the body that veils the soul and has to be constantly washed, tried, and tested. The body is like a donkey that needs a diet moderate enough so as not to become gluttonous, sensible work so as not to become proud, and constant beating so as not to grow lazy.

    So, stand by the bed-curtain, that is, stand by the body but not in the body in the sense of attending to the desires of the flesh but nourishing the body on a moderate diet of necessities. That person stands by the body and not in the body who keeps his or her body from unnecessary desire for food. Stand also behind the bed-curtain in the sense of scorning the lust of the flesh, doing honor to God, and spending your energies entirely for him.

    In this way stood those who spread their bodies out like clothes for God, who were at all times ready to do as he wished, whenever it pleased him to call them. They did not have a long way to go to him whom they kept ever present. Heavy burdens did not weigh upon their necks, for they scorned every burden and were in the world in body alone. This is why they flew free and unimpeded to heaven. Nothing impeded them but a dry and well-disciplined garment, and when they had taken it off, they obtained their heart’s desire.
    This man had a dangerous fall but wisely raised himself up. He defended himself like a man, fought steadfastly, and persevered with persistence. This is why he shall now receive an eternal crown and find himself already in the presence of God.”





  3. EUSSR

    Well there you have it folks, welcome to the wonderful ideology of multiculturalism being rammed down our throats as a priceless cultural gift. Well one day the shit’s going to hit the fan.

    unhooked25 3 months ago



    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

    So, as you can see, race is not a social construct, and white people are not exempt from the rules. White countries are being flooded by millions of third world immigrants, and they say this will cure a race problem. But this is only done to white countries and ONLY white countries. It violates international law, it is genocide.

    Hairmetaller86 5 days ago 13

    @Raybanmonster One who argues that race does not exist, or the only race is the human race is stating that genocide has never occurred and cannot occur. It is silly anti-white logic but then again, everything anti-Whites say is silly.

    PeteHappee 5 days ago 9

    11 Aug 2010

    One of the most brutal murders shown on crimewatch. A white woman is abducted by two black men and then set alight in a church yard. She later died from her injuries. How can anyone see this clip and not question the U.K immigration laws is beyond me?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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