Beware The Fabian Society

A while back I put together a thread investigating Cultural Marxism: The Unspoken New World Order - Cultural Marxism. Before I open the discussion surrounding The Fabian Society, some of you might find it useful to familiarise yourself with it.

Cultural Marxism: A Brief Synopsis

Cultural Marxism is a way for Marxist idealists to secretly bring about a post-modern age - a New World Order. The basic premise is that the western world will not accept blatant Communism, so it must be subverted over a long period of time in order to be primed for the acceptance of a more covert form of Communism. As suggested by The Frankfurt School, this subversion of western tradition should include the breakdown of family, law and order; mass immigration; feminism and political correctness.

The Fabian Society

From their own website:

The Fabian Society has played a central role for more than a century in the development of political ideas and public policy on the left of centre. Analysing the key challenges facing the UK and the rest of the industrialised world in a changing society and global economy, the society's programme aims to explore the political ideas and the policy reforms which will define progressive politics in the new century.

The society is unique among think-tanks in being a democratically-constituted membership organisation. It is affiliated to the Labour Party but is editorially and organisationally independent. Through its publications, seminars and conferences, the society provides an arena for open-minded public debate.

All Labour Prime Ministers have been members of the Fabian Society, while the Young Fabians have been influential in creating debate and as an arena for young people with an interest in politics to both influence and learn from influential political figures.

The Fabian Society

The Fabian Society is a think-tank with a self-proclaimed 'noble' aim then. So why would the original coat-of-arms of a 'noble', extremely influential society, affiliated with the Labour Party, consist of a wolf in sheep's clothing?


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3b6ad73f3b5b.jpg[/atsimg]


There could not be a more appropriate image to represent Cultural Marxism than a wolf in sheep's clothing. Not to mention the fact that it was originally founded in the year of Karl Marx's death to promote his ideas. It is a Marxist society - The British government are, through this, strongly affiliated with the Marxist ideal of a new world.

Furthermore, when you look at the key points being pushed by The Fabian Society, represented conveniently by their current topics of debate:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7e234de69da3.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0a9c1e82abef.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/43ec8483cf78.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/485291ba5c21.jpg[/atsimg]

...and compare them with Frankfurt School and known New World Order propaganda, it becomes chillingly clear that the Fabian Society is a devious, powerful, subversive organisation dedicated to creating a new, post-modern society against our wishes.

As one blog puts it:

Founded the year of Marx's death to promote his ideas through gradualism, the Fabian Society sought to "honeycomb" society, as Fabian Margaret Cole put it, with disguised socialist measures. By glossing over its goals, the Fabian Society hoped to avoid galvanizing the enemies of socialism.

Secret Teachings


There you have it. Further proof of the unspoken new world order. Expose at every turn.

The Fabians are an group of capitalist elites in left-wing clothing. It's regarded as the core think-tank for the British "New Labour" movement, whose split from the traditional Labour party occured when Tony Blair overturned Clause IV of the Labour Party constitution. Clause IV reads as follows:

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

Removing this effectively destroys New Labour's support for even the most basic socialist beliefs, which concern the ownership of the means of production by the working class. The New Labour's intention in removing Clause IV is to forge a "third way", which is a synthesis of right and left wing political and economic structures. This also runs contrary to socialism. I would be tempted to concur with Trotsky that the Fabians are simply a ploy, a red herring, to save capitalism from the working class. The original organization that the Fabians sprouted off from, the Fellowship of New Life, is a much more legitimate organization, with their foundation in the ideas of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, and their belief in pacifism, vegetarianism and simple living. Unless those things are part of the New World Order, right?


You would be interested to note that several early Fabians, such as Sidney and Beatrice Webb, were close friends with H.G. Wells, who advocated strongly the concept that would blossom into the E.U. Wells is well known for having said the following:

"Countless people, from maharajas to millionaires and from pukkha sahibs to pretty ladies, will hate the new world order, be rendered unhappy by frustration of their passions and ambitions through its advent and will die protesting against it."

The quote comes from a pamphlet Wells wrote called The New World Order, where he calls for a global society based on worldwide social democracy. It's an interesting read, and not as evil as one might conclude based on it's unfortunate title (but how could Wells have foreseen throngs of conspiracy theorists salivating over such words?).

Edit: I didn't realize this, but H.G. Wells was actually a member of the Fabian Society for a short time, however, he broke with them because of his desires for a far more radical society. His criticism of the Fabian Society, in addition to their lackluster method of promoting the spirit of revolution, included a sub-par understanding of economic theory and focus on the reformation of the educational system of the time.

[edit on 8-1-2010 by Someone336]

reply to post by Someone336

Thank you for that wonderful, indepth reply. Starred!

Clause IV of the Labour Party constitution appears, though, to be a worthy indicator of the gulf between genuine Marxist ideal and the New World Order. This distinction was debated in quite some depth in my thread about Cultural Marxism (linked above). The overturning of this Clause IV seems, to me, to be what separates Marxism from the NWO and Old Labour from New Labour. True Marxists support the theory that an old-style bourgeoisie should be eradicated whereas the NWO wish to create an ultra-elite bourgeoisie with the rest of us living essentially as we would under a Marxist system. This appears to be what Tony Blair was trying to move toward when he overturned Clause IV.

reply to post by Cythraul

True Marxists support the theory that an old-style bourgeoisie should be eradicated whereas the NWO wish to create an ultra-elite bourgeoisie with the rest of us living essentially as we would under a Marxist system. This appears to be what Tony Blair was trying to move toward when he overturned Clause IV.

I would disagree with you slightly. What we have, I believe, is the threat of "Lemon Socialism" or "socialism for the rich, free markets for the poor". We're forced to live in the rat race, the large majority in horrendous debt and struggling to stay afloat while large corporations that are teetering on the brink of imminent collapse are willingly adopt 'socialist' ideas to sustain themselves. Another term for this is "privatizing profits and socializing losses."

But don't tell the modern populace!

Originally posted by Someone336
Another term for this is "privatizing profits and socializing losses."

...ie Socialism-in-practice. Most people would agree that Marxism could be good in theory, but always fails in practice because it requires a powerful state and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

But the real point of this thread isn't to debate Socialism Vs Capitalism - it is to discuss why an influential organisation calling itself Marxist or Socialist is strongly associated with the British government, and why its coat of arms depicts a wolf-in-sheeps-clothing. This coat-of-arms essentially represents one aspect of the British government - why?

I agree, this is a topic that interests me greatly and I would hate to see it derailed. Plus, I like it when people are differing opinions cast them aside to look at something like this. Keeps things fresh.

H.G. Wells was a member of the Coefficients, an Edwardian dinner club founded in 1902 by fellow Fabians Sidney and Beatrice Webb. This membership of the club included:

* Leopold Stennett Amery, statesman and Conservative politician.
* Richard Burdon Haldane, Liberal politician, lawyer, and philosopher.
* Halford John Mackinder, geographer and politician.
* Leopold Maxse, editor, National Review
* Alfred Milner, statesman and colonial administrator
* Henry Newbolt, author and poet.
* Carlyon Bellairs, naval commander and M.P.
* James Louis Garvin, journalist and editor
* William Pember Reeves, New Zealand statesman, historian and poet
* Bertrand Russell, philosopher, and mathematician
* Sir Clinton Edward Dawkins, businessman and civil servant.
* Sir Henry Birchenough, businessman and civil servant.
* Sir Edward Grey, Liberal politician
* H. G. Wells, novelist

Quite the interesting crew here! Leopold Amery helped draft the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which was made in a letter from James Balfour to Baron Walter Rothschild. It reads as follows:

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

Leopold Maxse, the National Review editor, was the brother of Violet Cecil, the brother of Edward Cecil. In a rather complicated set of family ties, the Cecils were related to the aforementioned James Balfour.

Alfred Milner was also an author of the Balfour Declaration. He also attended the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, organized by the allied powers at the end of the First World War to set the peace terms for Germany. It was at this conference that the League of Nations was established, and also the groundwork laid for the eventual Council on Foreign Relations. The Balfour Declaration was also brought up at the Peace Conference by the Zionist Organization, who drafted a statement that quoted it in its entirety, concerning the rights of the Jewish people to the land known as Palestine. Milner is also said to have been a founding member of the Round Table, a “an association of organizations promoting closer union between Britain and its self-governing colonies.”

Historian Carroll Quigley claimed that the Round Table Groups were connected to a secret society, which South African diamond baron Cecil Rhodes is believed to have set up with similar goals. Rhodes was believed by some to have formed this secret society in his lifetime. This secret society is supposed to have been named the Society of the Elect.[3]

Rhodes first formalised his idea with William T. Stead, editor of the Pall Mall Gazette, when he and Stead agreed on the structure of the secret society. This proposed secret society had an elaborate hierarchical structure, based on that of the Jesuits, which comprised: at the top, the position of "General of the Society"—a position modelled on the General of the Jesuits—to be occupied by Rhodes, with Stead and Lord Rothschild as his designated successors; an executive committee called the "Junta of Three", comprising Stead, Milner and Reginald Baliol Brett (Lord Esher); then a "Circle of Initiates", consisting of a number of notables including Cardinal Manning, Lord Arthur Balfour, Lord Albert Grey and Sir Harry Johnston; and outside of this was the "Association of Helpers", the broad mass of the Society. One of the puzzles surrounding this meeting is whether the "Society of the Elect" actually came into being. Carroll Quigley claims in Tragedy and Hope (1966) that Rhodes's "Society of the Elect" was not only "formally established" in 1891, although its first inception existed some ten years prior (1881), but that its "outer circle" known as the "Association of Helpers" was "later organised by Milner as the Round Table". [3]

(It would also seem that Leopold Amery was a member of the Round Table!)

The other co-founder of the Round Table, Lionel Curtis would establish the British Institute of International Affairs. The CFR would be designed as an American counterpart. But I digress, so back to the Coefficients!
Clinton Edward Dawkins was the successor to Alfred Milner as Chancellor of the Exchequer George Goschen, and in 1899 he would join John Pierpont Morgan as a full partner in J.S. Morgan & Co., which would eventually become J.P. Morgan and Co.

H.G. Wells seemed to regard the Coefficients in the same way he regarded the Fabians – as a tad bit silly and meaningless. Like the “socialist” organization, he split from the group, and in his book The New Machiavelli he regarded the Webbs as “short-sighted, bourgeois manipulators.”

I am continually blown away at the distinct lack of attention paid to threads focusing on the Fabians, The Bank of International Settlements, the true meaning and persuasion behind Fascism, Edward Bernays, Nikola Tesla, the Franklin child abuse scandals, the list is literally endless.

Topics such as 9/11, the spiral anomalies over Norway, and the "lost civilization of Atlantis" seem to produce endless threads with yet endless replies, but truly informative threads containing concrete information on what seems to the end game regarding this small band of families who have passed down true inter-generational power seem to forever go un-noticed.

Thank you both, for each contribution and I hope to see more in the future.

Stars and Flags for all of the threads, which I have read until now, posted by both of the individuals who have previously posted in this thread.

Seriously. Thank you both.

reply to post by Cythraul


There is no state or government if you will in communism and no one person wields more power than the next. If this Fabian society are truly influencing what is happening to the UK i can safely say that they are not doing a good job of turning us into commies.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by Solomons]

to me that just reads like the same old government systems the planet has always had, just repackaged with new names. ultra elite rulers over a bunch of marxist peasants lol can you spell serf? communism with an elite ruling class. can you spell serf? marxism CAN YOU SPELL SERF?

reply to post by Cythraul


I've missed this thread - but can I confirm that one has attend numerous (and participated in) Fabian Society debates. It was far from Marxist. Majority of the ideas are rather liberal or left libertarian- the radical socialist elements of the past are barely discussed or mentioned in debates.

reply to post by Josephus23

I am continually blown away at the distinct lack of attention paid to threads focusing on the Fabians, The Bank of International Settlements, the true meaning and persuasion behind Fascism, Edward Bernays, Nikola Tesla, the Franklin child abuse scandals, the list is literally endless.

I agree.

When you try to get a thread going about a serious discussion it generally bombs on the first page. Unfortunately the Fabians, ably helped by John Dewey founding member of the American Fabians and Father of Progressive Education in the USA, have succeeded in their goal of dumbing down the masses to the point where they no longer can think.

Dewey stated it very bluntly:

Dumbing Down America
.....the purpose of the school was to show how education could be changed to produce little socialists and collectivists instead of little capitalists and individualists. It was expected that these little socialists, when they became voting adults, would dutifully change the American economic system into a socialist one.

In order to do so he analyzed the traditional curriculum that sustained the capitalist, individualistic system and found what he believed was the sustaining linchpin -- that is, the key element that held the entire system together: high literacy. To Dewey, the greatest obstacle to socialism was the private mind that seeks knowledge in order to exercise its own private judgment and intellectual authority. High literacy gave the individual the means to seek knowledge independently. It gave individuals the means to stand on their own two feet and think for themselves. This was detrimental to the "social spirit" needed to bring about a collectivist society. Dewey wrote in Democracy and Education, published in 1916:

When knowledge is regarded as originating and developing within an individual, the ties which bind the mental life of one to that of his fellows are ignored and denied.

When the social quaility of individualized mental operations is denied, it becomes a problem to find connections which will unite an individual with his fellows. Moral individualism is set up by the conscious separation of different centers of life. It has its roots in the notion that the consciousness of each person is wholly private, a self-inclosed continent. intrinsically independent of the ideas, wishes, purposes of everybody else.

And he wrote in School and Society in 1899:

The tragic weakness of the present school is that it endeavors to prepare future members of the social order in a medium in which the conditions of the social spirit are eminently wanting ...

The mere absorbing of facts and truths is so exclusively individual an affair that it tends very naturally to pass into selfishness. There is no obvious social motive for the acquirement of merely learning, there is no clear social gain in success threat.

It seems incredible that a man of Dewey's intelligence could state that the sort of traditional education that produced our founding fathers and the wonderful inventors of the 19th century lacked "social spirit" when it was these very individuals who created the freest, happiest, and most prosperous nation in all of human history.... And so, high literacy had to go....

The elite of course send their children to places like Phillips Academy for a Classical Education

Originally posted by infinite
reply to post by Cythraul

 

I've missed this thread - but can I confirm that one has attend numerous (and participated in) Fabian Society debates. It was far from Marxist. Majority of the ideas are rather liberal or left libertarian- the radical socialist elements of the past are barely discussed or mentioned in debates.

I'm not surprised!, they dont need quaint debating societies anymore - they are all in government now!

Becoming active on ATS, I'm increasingly aware that a lot of posters are defined, not by what they think or believe in themselves, but by what they have decided to fear.

Maybe that's understandable, but deciding to be afraid of the Fabian Society because it supposedly promotes Marxism and chose an emblem of a wolf in sheep's clothing (what a way to keep a secret!) is just absurd.

reply to post by Cythraul


It is very interesting that this information should be surfacing at this precise moment.

Articles about Cultural Marxism their links to the labour party in the UK trough the Fabian Society. The acts of violence in Norway, against the Labour Government and young member of the party. Now being described as Cultural Marxism / Multiculturalism, of which the shooter in Oslo, and is emerging the group, of which the website is under investigation here on ATS, is violently opposed, in what is being called the new crusade! the video prologue of this attack, link to, is also posted on one of the other threads here on ATS.

I am sorry, but all this linked information is coming out very conveniently at the moment. something does not smell right.

Originally posted by Snippy23
Becoming active on ATS, I'm increasingly aware that a lot of posters are defined, not by what they think or believe in themselves, but by what they have decided to fear.

Maybe that's understandable, but deciding to be afraid of the Fabian Society because it supposedly promotes Marxism and chose an emblem of a wolf in sheep's clothing (what a way to keep a secret!) is just absurd.

edit on 24-7-2011 by Snippy23 because: grammar

There is nothing wrong with fearing that which is dangerous is there!??? - Fabians are stealth, baby steps communists as opposed to revolutionary ones - which is why the wolf in sheeps clothing, and the window and the name itself. There is no 'supposedly' about it - they are working towards One World Communism, whilst pretending they are something else!

The Fabian Window - why can most people not see evil? Jun 16th, 2011 by Paul Marks.

If I was not so useless with computers this post would have a big picture of the Fabian Window with it. However, “radio has the best pictures” so I will do without a picture. For many years I have been baffled by why people (especially British people) are unable to see the blatent evil of the “Fabian Window” - a stained glass window produced by the Fabian Society (a group of “reformist” British socialists founded in the 1880s - and which still exists).

Over the last year or so Glenn Beck has been pointing at it (from time to time), but if my experience (years ago) is anything to go by, the main reactions he will get will be either blank looks or knowing nods and “can you not see the humour - the irony….” No I freaking well can not - to me it is an open statement of evil.

And yet politicians after politician (including Mr Blair) have stood beside it with a little smile on their faces - as if it was just a jolly jape. Still what am I ranting on about….. The window shows some men (leading Fabians) heating up an object and hammering it - much like craftsmen in the Middle Ages, accept the object is THE WORLD. They are subjecting the world to fire - and beating it with hammers. Why? To “make it closer to the heart’s desire” (the writing on the window says so) - they are prepared to fill the world with fire and hammer it (regardless of the cost in lives) to make it a different shape.

And under the world destroying (sorry “remaking”) we see leading Fabians, heads bowed in worship. But not worship of God or even the personificiation of reason (or anything like that) - no they are bowing their heads in worship of books. THEIR OWN BOOKS - a case of self worship (of treating their own products as divine).

www.countingcats.com...

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


Ah, well, if your thinking is consistent with that of Glenn Beck, then clearly you must be right. Perhaps the Fabian Society also has a presence beyond this world, and holds meetings in that building you found on Mars last year.

But, more seriously, what sort of society are you committed to? In particular who, if anyone in your ideal society, would house, clothe and feed those unable to look after themselves? And what quality of life would they have?

If the fabian Society, were the Evil NWO Marxists, then why was it the Fabian society that advised Britain to stay out of the Lisbon treaty. Surely they would have advised we join this Communist experiment? There are so many holes and contradictions in this whole NWO conspiracy. I'm afraid the world is a lot less organised than conspiracy theorist think.

Originally posted by Snippy23
reply to post by JohhnyBGood

 

Ah, well, if your thinking is consistent with that of Glenn Beck, then clearly you must be right. Perhaps the Fabian Society also has a presence beyond this world, and holds meetings in that building you found on Mars last year.

But, more seriously, what sort of society are you committed to? In particular who, if anyone in your ideal society, would house, clothe and feed those unable to look after themselves? And what quality of life would they have?

Hmmm - smears and cliches again, well I don't expect anything more from lefitists I suppose.

As for me I don't presume to be able to fix the world with some stupid utopian solution - sure mass consumerism is crap - but that is where the majority of people are at this time, and that is where the third world masses would die trying to get!

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
If the fabian Society, were the Evil NWO Marxists, then why was it the Fabian society that advised Britain to stay out of the Lisbon treaty. Surely they would have advised we join this Communist experiment? There are so many holes and contradictions in this whole NWO conspiracy. I'm afraid the world is a lot less organised than conspiracy theorist think.

edit on 24-7-2011 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)

You are commiting the classic mistake of not taking one step at a time! - that is what they rely on, that it is all just too far out of the box for the ordinary mind to even contemplate.

Just look at the window, the people who were early members, what they themselves said - there is simply no doubt or mistaking what their intention was.

As for nowadays - they have moved on of course to different power centres - they are in government all over the world for a start!

And as for the Euro - well Europe is due to be collapsed that is for sure - but Britain seems to have been allocated a separate fate from mainland Europe.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
If the fabian Society, were the Evil NWO Marxists, then why was it the Fabian society that advised Britain to stay out of the Lisbon treaty. Surely they would have advised we join this Communist experiment?

I missed that. Any links?

Doesn't seem to make sense on the surface, seeing as the Fabians are Labour and Labour are Fabians, and Labour are extremely pro-EU. The only answer I can suggest is that the Lisbon Treaty has a get-out clause and the Fabians realised it. Maybe the Lisbon Treaty wasn't 'final' enough for them and they were pushing for a re-write of the treaty?! Just thinking on my toes there.