Fabian influence by John Christian

“We are at present working discreetly, but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of the world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands.” Arnold Toynbee

A—The Basis of Local Government
B—City of London Corporation
C—The Beginning of Socialism in London
D—Fabian Society
E—Fabian Society “Five Year Plan”
F—Fabian Society Privatization of the World
G—Communist “Sustainable Development”
H—World Conservation Bank
I—Communist “SmartGrowth”
J—Pauperization of Pensioners and the Middle Class


The modern system of local and regional government can be directly traced back to Babylon, when in King Nebuchadnezzar’s time (605-562 B.C.), the city was divided up into ten distinct regions or districts ruled by princes, under whom were mayoral governors, captains, judges, treasurers, councillors and sheriffs. In modern times the system of local government that we have throughout the world is derived exclusively from the City of London Corporation.


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

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

The supreme ruler of the City is the Lord Mayor who is elected once a year and lives in the Mansion House. The City has a resident population of about 5,000 that rises to about two million during the week when people surge in and out each day to work.

The financial centre of the world, it is often termed the ‘wealthiest square mile on earth. ‘The full title of the Square Mile’s governing body is the ‘Mayor, Aldermen and Commons of the City of London in Common Council Assembled.’

Photo: The Lord Mayor 2006

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

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

As the result of a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ between the sovereign and the City merchants and bankers made many hundreds of years ago, the Lord Mayor is officially head of the Corporation and is allowed to operate independently of the sovereign. However, the wealth of the world held in the Corporation ultimately is the Sovereign’s, because, should the gentleman’s agreement break down, the sovereign has the power to “rescind” the Corporation’s independence.

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

While ostensibly the power of the monarchy appears to be diminishing as the Queen voluntarily gives her Commonwealth countries their independence and they become republics chartered to the United Nations, and she actively works toward abolishing the sovereignty of Britain as the UK is broken up and divided into regions of the European Union her City of London Corporation multi-national banks and corporations are quietly taking over the world.

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

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

After the conquest of William the Conqueror in 1066, who first brought the Jewish bankers to London from France, the Jews developed written credit agreements for the king, (in French called “mort-gages” mort ‘death’gage ‘bond’) and it was the marshal’s and sheriff’s jobs to ensure that all the interest payments of these “deathbonds” were paid to the Jews on behalf of the king.

During the reign of Richard I (the Lionheart) after the serious downturn in the economy as the result of the cost and tax impositions of the Crusades, (read “Blondel’s Song” by David Boyle to understand how 25% of the wealth of England was required in standard Silver Ingots to free Richard the Lionheart from not Saladdin but the Holy Roman Emperor!”) Many farmers, business people and peasants had defaulted on their “mort-gages” throughout England.

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

Subsequently, a rapid increase in hate against the “King’s Jews” was initiated. This led to the massacre of Jews at York in 1190. New York in America was later named by British Jewish immigrant bankers in memory of the event.

For 100 years the commoner’s hate against the “King’s Jews” fermented until 1290, when, under pressure from the people, Edward III finally suspended the Mayoralty and reluctantly banished all Jews from his kingdom when 16,000 left England and didn’t begin to return until around the reign of Elizabeth I 1558-1603) when the enormous power of the City really began to accelerate with the opening of the world’s first stock exchange in London and has continued unabated to the present day.

While there have been rare occasions when the Lord Mayor and Commalty of the City, as a result of their colossal wealth and power have been able to subtly out-manoeuvre the monarch, as to their cost, Richard II, Charles I and James II were to learn to their fate generally speaking this has been the exception rather than the rule.

Ultimately, whoever successfully rules must have the “will” of the people. Historically, in the City many although certainly not all monarchs, have ruled with the “will” of their subjects.

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

More often than not they’ve been consistently hated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gradually, as the people of England apostatized and turned away from the Protestant King James Bible and Christianity in general, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, in the late 1800′s the City and Monarchy became rabidly Socialist.


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

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

Socialism officially first began in 1880 in London when H. M. Hyndman founded the Rose Street Club which was dedicated to the destruction of Christianity in England.
In 1884 the group changed its name and came to be called the Social Democratic Federation.

Its early members deceptively called themselves “Christian Socialists”. Later the group’s membership included the Jew, Karl Marx’s daughter, Eleanor Marx
and her husband Professor Aveling. Behind the scenes the group was largely controlled by Engels, Karl Marx’s partner.

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

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


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

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

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

The name of the society was suggested by the Spiritualist, Frank Podmore, who named it after the brilliant, elderly, third century Roman general, censor and consul, Quintus Fabius (Maximus Verrucosus 303-203 BC) who was made a dictator in 221-217 BC and, with his small band of fighting guerrillas and superior cunning, successfully defended Rome by defeating Hannibal’s much bigger and mighty Carthaginian army through “gradualism” and “terrorism” during the time of the second Punic War.

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

During the war, his slow, “gradual,” delaying tactics were greatly disapproved of by his soldiers and the civilians and earned him the name of ‘Cunctator’ the ‘Delayer.’
But later, after the triumph, his skill and wisdom was highly appreciated. He died in his 100th year in 203 BC.

The only difference between Fabian Socialism and Communism is that Communists take your house by directly sending in the “secret police” to knock your front door down Fabian Socialists do it much more subtly and cleverly by “gradually” taking your individual rights away, by “gradually” increasing property taxes and rates, and finally, when you can’t pay them, they send in their regional “council tax inspectors” to take your house away but the end result is the same.

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

The philosophy of the Fabian Society was written in 1887 and included the statement: “The Fabian Society acknowledges the principal tenet of Marxism the abolition of private property etc.” (Of course this does not apply to the elect oligarchy at the top who end up owning the lot!).

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

However, it is much more deadly because it is much more clever and subtle. Sidney and Beatrice Webb published a book of 1143 pages in defense of Bolshevism. It was entitled Soviet Communism: A New Civilization.

In April 1952 the Webbs were exposed before a US Senate Committee on the judiciary when Soviet Colonel I. M. Bogolepov, a former Red Army officer stated that the entire text had been prepared by himself in the Soviet Foreign Office. Appropriately, the defiant coat of arms of the Fabian Society (commissioned by author/playwright co-founder George Bernard Shaw) today (now archived) is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

Until recently it also appeared on the Fabian glass window (now removed) in the Beatrice Webb House at Dorking, Surrey. Today the Fabian Society is among other things the intellectual wing of the British Labour Party.

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

Since the 1997 British general election there have been around 200 Fabian MP’s in the House of Commons, some of whom have formed almost entire Labour Cabinets including Gordon Brown, Robin Cook, Jack Straw, David Blunkett, Peter Hain, Patricia Hewitt, John Reid, Ruth Kelly, Alan Milburn and Clare Short.

Headed by Tony Blair, Fabians now dominate the entire British government.

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

A good web-site on the subject is: www.lindsayjenkins.com/

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

The Presidium was the drafting body that created the draft Constitution for Europe. In her book, The Making of Europe’s Constitution, published in December 2003 by the Fabian Society, p. 20-21, Gisela writes: “In the early months, the Presidium members would meet in a small room in the Justus Lipsius Building some fifteen minute walk from the European Parliament.

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

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

On several occasions, we would retreat to the Val Duchess a small palace used by the Belgian foreign minister. It was at one of the dinners at Val Duchess that the skeleton of the draft constitution was given to members of the presidium in sealed brown envelopes the weekend before the public presentation.

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

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

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

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

Sydney Webb called it ‘permeation.’ Today it would be called ‘consensus.’ Webb put it this way. Most reformers think that all they have to do in a political democracy is to obtain a majority. This is a profound mistake.

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

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

In the last century, members of the British Fabian Society dynastic banking families in the City of London financed the Communist takeover of Russia.

Trotsky in his biography refers to some of the loans from these British financiers going back as far as 1907.

By 1917 the major subsidies and funding for the Bolshevik Revolution were co- ordinated and arranged by Sir George Buchanan and Lord Alfred Milner.


The British plan to take over the world and bring in a “New World Order” began with the teachings of John Ruskin and Cecil Rhodes at Oxford University.

Rhodes in one of his wills in 1877 left his vast fortune to Lord Nathan Rothschild as trustee to set up the Rhodes Scholarship Program at Oxford to indoctrinate promising young graduates for the purpose, and also establish a secret society for leading business and banking leaders around the world who would work for the City to bring in their Socialist world government.

Rothschild appointed Lord Alfred Milner to implement the plan. At first the society was called Milner’s Kindergarten, then in 1909 it came to be called The RoundTable. It was to work closely with the London School of Economics founded in 1894 by
Fabian Socialist leader Sidney Webb (Lord Passfield).

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

The British Fabian Society plan to takeover the world by the City of London financial community was first published in a book entitled “All These Things” by a New Zealand author and journalist, A. N. Field.

The book was first published in 1936 by Omni Publications in the United States (and censored in New Zealand). The document, called “Freedom and Planning” was secretly circulated in 1932 by the inner councils of the members of the Political Economic Plan, otherwise known as “P.E.P.” in London.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

In this religion, a tree becomes more valuable than a human being. A rare bird more valuable than a hospital. This United Nations program of action unveiled in Rio was called Agenda 21. It is 300 pages long and is very complex.

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

The first Habitat conference was held in 1974 and specifically identified private property ownership as a threat to the peace and equality of the environment.
It proposed to revolutionize the development of the land and cities of each country under strict “Soviet-style” environmental guidelines, called “Sustainable Development.”

The UN’s communist secret agenda through “environmentalism” and “sustainable development” is very cunning and has deceived a lot of well-meaning people.
Most people genuinely want to protect the environment and ensure that the earth’s resources are “sustainable” for future generations there is no doubt.

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

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

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

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

Socialism is very subtle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Leading insiders of the biggest banks and UN agencies in the world were present, including Maurice Strong “Mr Sustainable,” David Rockefeller head of the ChaseManhattan Bank “Mr Development” and Mr David Ruckleshaus head of the UN Environmental Protection Agency “Mr Environment” of course!

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

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

The plan is very esoteric and cunning, and very difficult for most to understand. Already most government treasury departments are preparing for such an event.
As part of the preparation for this momentous event, all of the world’s individual currencies are to be merged into two or three major currency groups, two of which are the euro and US dollar.

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

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

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

George W. Hunt, (95 Camino Basque, Boulder, Colorado 80302, U.S.A.), a US businessman, attended the congress and produced a video about it exposing their wicked and incredibly deceptive plans. On his video he plays excerpts of key speeches recorded at the congress.

One such speech was made by David Lang, a leading US financier and close personal friend and business partner of Maurice Strong, who said: “When the auditor finally gets his hands into the balance sheet, I suggest therefore that this be sold not through a democratic process. That would take too long and devour far too much of the funds to educate the cannon fodder unfortunately which populates the earth. We have to take an almost elitist program that we can see beyond our swollen bellies and look to the future in time frames and in results which are not easily understood or which can be, with intellectual honesty, be reduced down to some sort of simplistic definition.”

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

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


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

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

The 1995 session the United Nations General Assembly passed a number of rules. Rule 61, 62 and 63 gave local government, civil organizations and private citizens the right to participate directly in the development and implementation of these documents. Directed by the IMF, World Bank, UN, and Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum, the philosophy of “sustainable development” basically says that there are too many people on planet earth and there are not enough resources to go around.

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

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

If the net figure is a plus, they are considered to be good productive world citizens. If it is a negative, they are in line for liquidation. These are all basically the same old Socialist/Communist ideas as the “Marxist/Leninist” philosophy and “planned economy” that permeated the old Soviet Union.

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

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

It proposes to model all the cities of the world on the Israel Moses Seif P.E.P plan, and the “planned” economic system of development used by Lenin and Stalin under the old Communist Soviet system of local government. The UN “SmartGrowth” legislation in the United States was first passed in the State of Maryland in March 1997. Since then, it has been gradually introduced by city and district councils all around the worl. Of course, rarely if ever will you hear of the policy coming from a foul brood of UN international bankers. While virtually all of the general public are oblivious of this fact, usually individual councils will be happy to credit themselves as authors of the plans.


Just as there is a “close relationship” between the remuneration rises of leading local body politicians with the overall level of council rate-rise demand, so there is a “close relationship” between the level of council rate-rise impositions and the financial status of people living in each council ward or constituency. The Fabian bankers already “own” the properties held by ratepayers with a “mort-gage” on them.

This includes all private homes, farms, businesses and commercial property, local and central government debt. All young people with student loans and welfare beneficiary groups also come under this category. By and large central bankers believe this group is not a worry as they are already under their strict control and firmly in their grip through welfare dependency or mort-gage “death-bond” fealty. But the one group that Fabian Socialists hate the most are the “freehold” property-owners. Hence, this group, more often than not, is the “middle class” that is predominantly comprised of middle-aged citizens and more particularly pensioners who are generally the most asset-rich.

As a result of this phenomenon, all global residential property taxation and ratepayer tax policies are now being subtly targeted against these particular groups to confiscate all their properties. Essentially the Fabian City of London banks envisage this to be achieved through a variety of measures.


This entry was posted in Banking, Corporates, Fabian Society, Globalisation, Marxism, Socialism, Subversion. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Fabian influence by John Christian

  1. Commentary by Barry Turner:

    Notes on “Communist” Councils in New Zealand

    Colonel B.S. Turner, C Eng., F.I. Mech. E.

    Colonel Barry Turner was asked to comment on a paper by Mr. John Christian titled “Communist” Councils in New Zealand.
    Col. Turner’s comments are a good summary of the present situation in the western world.

    A copy of John Christian’s important paper it is available from:
    Robert Theobald bobsbobbins@yahoo.co.uk 01582 724644 int +44 1582 724644

    On first perusing “Communist” Councils in New Zealand many individuals whose superficial perceptions of national and international affairs are largely cultivated in pubs, clubs, golf club bars, and by the controlled communications media with its array of “talking heads”, may well catch their breath at the opening paragraphs and the apparent enormity of the statements therein.

    As it is, popular perceptions, especially those of the broad and conveniently amorphous “middle classes” — whatever this term actually means — have been systematically conditioned over many years by “trigger terms” such as “conspiracy”, “conspiracy theory”, “fascist”, neo-Nazi”, “hard Left”, “far Right”, “anti-Semitism”, “racism”, “discrimination”, “Islamo-terrorism”, “Islamo-fascism” and so on. All too often such terms are deliberately invoked to convey a particular impression or distortion with the intention of deterring rational, analytical thought and enquiry.
    Unfortunately, there are well-informed authorities, such as the American author Eustace Mullins, whose sometimes intemperate approach invites the “conspiracy” cachet. Nevertheless, there is a wealth of wholly responsible and meticulously researched material that the sceptic would do well to consult before it is too late, and our independence is lost.

    With the advantage over the potential sceptics and uninitiated, of 20 years of intensive research and analysis, I am confident that the content and claims of “Communist” Councils in New Zealand are essentially correct. I have checked the details from my own archives and standard references, such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica on Fabianism and the Internationals, Who’s Who, Fabian Society publications, annual reports of banks and corporations and so on.

    Jane Stoddart [1] and Rose L. Martin [2] have published important and definitive works on Socialism — which has a clear international ideology, clearly reflected in “Communist” Councils in New Zealand . It is important, in view of the magnitude and profound implications of the subject, to amplify some of the content in certain respects. However, it is first necessary to add a strong note of caution in the case of the British Monarchy.

    Her Majesty a Constitutional Monarch
    Certain individuals, especially Americans, entertain an almost unhealthy fascination for the British Monarchy, its role and influence, which tends to be reflected in the text of “Communist” Councils in New Zealand. Lacking understanding of some 2,000 years of the mystique and tradition organic to the British psyche, they draw for themselves unrealistic and simplistic images.

    Some palpable Nonsense
    The analyst and commentator Lyndon LaRouche, whose organisation produces some excellent work, is not untypical of this. The image he portrayed of Her Majesty the Queen as presiding over the international drug cartels at a time when she would have been a young woman barely ascended the Throne was palpable nonsense.

    Likewise images of Her Majesty personally involved at the centre of a global financial network. Inevitably she has to move in such circles. Surrounded by discreet courtiers and advisers, the Monarchy is inherently wealthy and must function within the common global economic model – as does the rest of society at all levels.
    Paradoxically, it is from the stable of LaRouche that we have an interesting account of the management of the Royal finances from a book on the late Tiny Rowland [3]

    The observer will know that monarchies around the world, reigning, constitutional, redundant or deposed, constitute, with their ancient traditions, a discreet power group of their own. That said, when simplistically attributing legislation to Her Majesty, it must be recognised that the British Monarchy is a Constitutional Monarchy. Her Majesty will be privy to affairs of state and is endowed with considerable experience over a reign of more than half a century, but legislation is nevertheless carried out by the Government in her name.

    At the heart of “Communist” Councils in New Zealand lies Power and its control in the progressive centralisation of that Power on a global scale. Arguably, this situation can only be challenged meaningfully by the mass of an informed and independent middle class. Within this scenario the ultimate control is that of Money Power. This we need to consider before examining the organisations and mechanisms involved in the exercise of that Power.

    Why economy is fundamentally bankrupt
    In the context of “Communist” Councils in New Zealand we must consider why the economy is fundamentally bankrupt, and the manner of the issuance of money interest free by governments into the public domain to satisfy the national requirement. Essentially, this means in the form of “cash”– notes and coins (the official term for which is “M0”). But between 1950 and 2000, and the progressive transition to a “cheque book” system, the percentage of this interest-free money fell from 50 per cent to 3 per cent. Instead of issuing the balance of the original requirement in the form of low interest or interest free government bonds, this balance has been increasingly borrowed from the private banking system at interest charged to the public purse and paid through taxation. Hence the escalation of the National Debt and concomitant constraints on public service expenditure.

    At the same time the virtually unregulated creation of money by the private banking system has proceeded apace, thus increasing corporate as well as individual and government liabilities. Inherent in this debt-based system of money creation is the fundamental principle that debt chases its tail as an insatiable overhead. Public services, pensions, mortgages, student and other private debt are fast approaching a state of financial meltdown. The sell-off of capital assets — the “family silver”- through privatisation, private finance initiatives (PFI), sale and lease back of public property are doomed to failure in the long term as the capital accrued is inevitably dissipated to service the debt.

    More accurately seen as a power-grid
    I have frequently portrayed global debt-based finance as an inverted cone growing ever higher as it spins in precarious equilibrium. It may also be likened to the life-giving blood circulation system of the human body. More accurately, however, it may be seen as an electricity power grid by which those in control can regulate the flow, increasing or restricting the capacity, directing or cutting the supply.
    By this debt-based system a privileged, powerful section of the financial and investing sector of the community is living off the backs of the rest of society. It must also be recognised that the basic purpose of money is to facilitate the exchange of goods and services, not to be traded and regulated as a commodity in its own right for massive profit on what is now a computerised global scale. Thus it was in the early 1930’s of the Great Depression, when the progressive consolidation of financial power was well underway, that the Earl of Tankerville spoke of Poverty Amidst Plenty, in which the denial of the fruits of production and the earth’s natural resources was imposed by artificial financial constraints. In his monumental 1,348 pages Professor Carroll Quigley, himself an “insider”, exposed how this private global economic hegemony was being brought about [4].

    To whom do we owe these debts?
    In 1987 Lady Caroline Neill wrote from All Soul’s College, Oxford, to The Daily Telegraph under the heading “In quest of the markets’ missing millions”. She posed the question “…all nations are in the same boat to a greater or lesser degree. To whom, then, do we owe these debts? To each other, to the International Monetary Fund or its associates in the banking world?” In 2006 the Bromsgrove Group for Monetary and Economic Reform issued a Paper in which the money system was explained, and which embodied the method by which public debt could easily and logically be contained and reduced [5].

    Over the years countless books have been written on the money “question”. As early as 1876 American industrialist, William A Berkey, wrote of the power of money with specific reference to the involvement of the Rothschilds during and after the Civil War of 1861-63 [6].
    More recently, in 1983, James Gibb Stuart published an exposure which resulted in a high level reprisal against an entirely unconnected business venture [7]. In 1998 Robin Ramsay wrote compellingly how the City of London gained control first, over the Conservative Party; secondly over the “New” Labour Party [8]. In 1998 Michael Rowbotham wrote two books with significantly appropriate titles [9] [10].

    What is this Power, and how is it exercised?
    There are numerous strands to this complex web. In 1921 Nesta Webster published a meticulously researched book on the World Revolution [11]. In this she traced the continuity of the revolutionary conspiracy from the Illuminati of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789, through the evolution of Marxism and Socialism in its various forms to the Bolshevik uprising of 1917. Inevitably she exposed the leading role of certain elements of the Jewish Community, already epitomised in finance by the Rothschilds.

    A leading advocate of the Social Credit Movement, Major C.H. Douglas, who had been closely involved with the logistics of the 1914-18 War, also identified this link. Consequently, exponents of monetary and economic reform have often been vilified by accusations of anti-semitism.
    It is therefore worth noting that Nesta Webster’s insights were considered credible enough for her to be invited to address a meeting in the Royal Artillery Institution, Woolwich, on 30th November 1920, on “The Origin and Progress of the World Revolution”. By special request she was invited to speak again on the subject to officers and NCO’s of the Brigade of Guards in London, on 10th March 1921.
    On the 8th February 1920, no less than Winston Churchill wrote an article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald with the title “Zionism versus Bolshevism — A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People”. Already a seasoned Cabinet Minister, Churchill referred to the work of Nesta Webster and fairly associated International Jews with the “world-wide conspiracy”, rather than the Jewish community as a whole.

    1919 saw the formation of the (later Royal) Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), under the auspices of Lord Milner, This was followed by its closely associated group in the United States; the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). From this was spawned affiliated organisations around the world, such as the Institute of Pacific Affairs and the Round Table Groups. (In Australia the Australian Institute of International Affairs…ed) [12]
    In due course we had the very powerful American tax-exempt foundations and trusts such as Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie. Joining this network in various roles we had organisations such as the Tavistock Institute, the Aspen Institute, Ditchley Foundation, Group of 30, the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission.

    A study of this unelected elite network reveals the cross linkage of these Global Powerbrokers. The record also reveals the conterminous relationship between Socialism, International Fabian Socialism and International Finance Capitalism. We should also remember that the second “S” in USSR stood for “Socialist”. The Marxist World Revolution to destroy the Existing Order of the Bourgeoisie (In the 19th Century as owners of the land and the means of production), included the destruction of the Nation State (Nationalism), the family, religion, morality and the elimination of private property and inheritance.

    In 1931 Professor Arnold Toynbee, Director of Studies at the RIIA, delivered an address in Copenhagen, in which he declared the aim of “a deliberate and sustained and concentrated effort to impose limitations upon sovereignty and the independence of the fifty or sixty local sovereign independent states which at present partition the habitable surface of the earth and divide the political allegiance of mankind”.

    On 19th November 1937, the Fabian Nicholas Murray Butler addressed a banquet in London with the words, “Communism is the instrument with which the financial world can topple national governments and then erect a world government with a world police and world money”.

    By chance I acquired a copy of the “personal and strictly confidential” Report of a Bilderberg Conference which took place in Canada in 1968. Papers tabled at that Conference reflected clearly the coming process of globalisation to a stage when corporations would become more powerful than sovereign national governments. In the 1970’s C. Gordon Tether, a respected financial journalist and founder of the “Lombard” column in the Financial Times, began to expose the pressure for centralisation in a European Economic Community, the influence of the Bilderberg Group, and the power of the international financial markets. With a change of editor he found his work increasingly censored until he was removed from his column altogether. [13]

    When violent revolution — the “Armed Struggle” of Communist Doctrine — failed to take off in Western Europe, the revolution took the form of the Ideological Struggle. Thus we had the formation of the Institute for Social Research, the “Frankfurt School” in Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany in 1923. [14]

    I have been at pains not to stress the well-catalogued involvement of Jews in this commentary in fairness to the wider Jewish Community as a whole. But here we had three such; Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno and Herbert Marcuse. Thus began work to destabilise tradition, morality, religion and the family — Gramsci’s “long march through the institutions”. This has shaped society as it is today at the very highest levels. One element of this has been Political Correctness (P.C.), which has progressively constrained freedom and independence of thought and expression. Dr. Frank Ellis, formerly lecturer in Soviet Studies at Sheffield University, is himself a target of the Politically Correct attack. In the Winter, 2002, edition of The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, he published a definitive paper “Political Correctness and the Ideological Struggle: From Lenin and Marx to Marcuse and Foucault”. In this he revealed the continuity of Marxism-Leninism in the process of social and moral destabilisation.

    What is the state of play today?
    David C. Korten [15] Noreena Hertz [16] and John Pilger [17] have each written of the Global Oligarchy and Corporate Power from their individual perspectives. All tell much the same story. The relationship of the organisations and mechanisms of this Power may perhaps be visualised as an interrelated, interdependent pattern of rings, rather like the interlocking rings of the symbol of the Olympic Games. Harder to evaluate is the life-giving, coordinating “core” of the whole, if one exists. Or is the corporate structure moving towards its own ultimate destruction and that of the planet?

    What is certain in the United Kingdom is that the present ‘New’ Labour Government and its associates and sponsors function no differently to the elite, corrupt and privileged Soviet Nomenklatura. In half a century of wealth redistribution, the Middle Classes have expanded in a material sense rather than culturally or socially. The wealth producing, professional, managerial and academic element is beleaguered, increasingly emasculated intellectually by a continual application of the Marxist Class War — the Ideological Struggle. Economic slavery involves individual debt standing now at £1,000,000,000,000. Thom Hartmann writes of a comparable situation in the United States [18]

    Reference is rarely made to the bloated super-rich of off-shore tax havens, vast profits and bonuses bled from the financial markets, or the land-owning and professional elites in that grey area between the mass of the ordinary Middle Classes and the wealthy “upper” Middle Classes, and the Upper Classes.

    Similarly, reference is rarely made in this context to the grossly over-paid celebrity culture of the media, entertainment, fashion, advertising and sporting industries. No reference is made to exclusive access to the best education and healthcare and other resources open only the wealthy elite, leaving the ordinary Middle Classes exposed to the Class War.

    ‘Demand’ engineered by money
    In the context of “Communist” Councils in New Zealand, and the attack on private property and inheritance, one should recognise that the pretext for the Residential Property Tax in targeting the captive, vulnerable mass of the Middle Classes, is justified by escalating property values.
    But the property market is a direct function of demand engineered by money made available by the financial sector. Thus when mortgage offers in the United Kingdom have risen successively from 4, to 5, to 6 times the salary multiple, the Middle Classes are trapped by this deliberate strategy.

    On the 9th April, 2007 The Guardian newspaper reported a Ministry of Defence Study of possible future commitments “Revolution, flash mobs, and brain chips. A grim vision of the future”. The findings concluded that the Middle Classes could one day become a Marxist type “revolutionary class” against the growing gap between the Middle Classes, the super-rich and the urban underclass. We should be warned!

    (1) Stoddart Jane T. The New Socialism — An Impartial Inquiry. Hodder Stoughton, 1909.
    (2) Martin, Rose L. Fabian Freeway — High Road to Socialism in the USA. Western Islands, 1966.
    (3) EIR. Investigative Team. Tiny Rowland–The Ugly Face of Neocolonialism in Africa, Executive Intelligence Review, 1993.
    (4) Quigley, Carroll. Tragedy and Hope — A History of the World in our Time. The Macmillan Company, 1966.
    (5) McConnachie, Alistair, B.S.c.(Agric Econ) and Associates. Clarifying Our Proposals — A Report for the Tenth Annual Bromsgrove Conference, 26th October, 2006.
    (6) Berkey, William A. Monetary System of the United States, W.W.Hart, 1876.
    (7) Stuart, James Gibb. The Money Bomb. Wlliam Maclellan (Embryo) Ltd., 1983.
    (8) Ramsay, Robin. Prawn Cocktail Party — The Hidden Power Behind New Labour. Vision Paperbacks, 1998.
    (9) Rowbotham, Michael. The Grip of Death — A study of modern money, debt slavery and destructive economics. Jon Carpenter, 1998.
    (10) Rowbotham, Michael. Goodbye America! Globalisation, debt and the dollar empire. Jon Carpenter, 2000.
    (11) Webster, Nesta H. World Revolution — The Plot against Civilisation. Constable and Company Ltd., 1921.
    (12) Quigley, Carroll. The Anglo-American Establishment — From Rhodes to Cliveden. Books in Focus Inc., 1981.
    (13) Tether, C Gordon, in association with John Coleman. The Banned Articles of C Gordon Tether. 1977.
    (14) Slater, Phil. Origins and Significance of the Frankfurt School. Routledge and Kegan Paul 1977.
    (15) Korten, David C. When Corporations Rule The World. Berrett Kohler Inc., Kumarian Press, 2001.
    (16) Hertz, Noreena. The Silent Takeover — Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy. William Heinemann, 2001.
    (17) Pilger, John. The New Rules of the World. Verso 2002.
    (18) Hartmann, Thom. Screwed — The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class — And What We Can Do About It. Berrett Kohler Inc. San Francisco, 2006.

    Note for UK readers:
    Copies of references 3, 4, 7-12, 15 and 16 may be obtained on enquiry from Bloomfield Books: tel. 01787 376374; international + 44 1787 376374; fax 01787 376967;
    International + 44 1787 376967. E-mail: Donald.Martin@fsbdial.co.uk
    Reference 5 may be obtained from Prosperity 268 Bath Street, Glasgow, G2 4JR. 1 copy for £10, 2 copies for £15, 3 copies for £18 and 4 or more at £5 each.

    For Australian readers:
    A fair selection of the mentioned books are are available from Heritage Book Services, Box 1052 GPO Melbourne Australia 3001

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