It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
Originally posted by Someone336
Another term for this is "privatizing profits and socializing losses."
* 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
"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.
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.
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". 
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.
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....
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.
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
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).
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?
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)
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?