The Fabian Society's Keir Starmer
There are observable trends, and then there are timeless, universal certainties.
Prices go up, days turn to nights, kids ask questions, socks disappear, laundry piles up, autocorrect misbehaves, bills come in above expectation, traffic jams, …
… and the Labour Party is full of Fabian Socialists.
They are listed as a co-founder, but that’s somewhat of a muted description1.
But first - the qualifier. Why is this article called for?
Because though they will vehemently declare that they merely are a ‘think tank’, that’s - as per usual one of many lies pushed by this filthy, disgusting, parasitical, lying, manipulative, fraudulent, complicit, corrupt, nation-state hating cesspool of marxist ideology in drag organisation.
More than any, they have been the driving force behind this cynical, subversive process seeking to undermine Britain, and it’s time to expose them for exactly what they are - and who. A batch of lying, parasitical, elitist twits who claim to represent the working class, yet do not have a background reflecting this - at all.
They are a bunch of hypocritical frauds, who think they know better than all, and thus don’t even need to involve the majority of the population in democratic debate, because they quite simply know better than you. In fact, they are better than you - so they believe, when you consider the sheer weight of evidence you can find when looking in the right places, such as ‘People and planet‘2 from 2013, stating unequivocally -
‘2015 is a key opportunity for the world to build this vision. Only if we have a coming together of the sustainable development goals and the poverty reduction agenda can we truly hope to see radical, progressive and transformational change that we need‘.
Or how about ‘Public Service Futures - Welfare States in the Digital Age‘ from 2020, in which across just two pages we have an almost comedic quantity of confessions -
‘Sustainable development… human wellbeing… planetary boundaries… collective responsibility… devolved to the lowest appropriate level… planetary health… iterative ethical and legislative framework… resposibly use technology… equity…‘
Not only do they manage to hit pretty much every single major topic I’ve spent months and months deconstructing here on this substack, but all in the same report!
And though their standard disclaimer obviously goes ‘This pamphlet does not represent the collective views of FEPS or the Fabian Society, but only the opinion of the respective authors‘, that quite simply doesn’t wash. Why?
Because this particular document was edited by the very General Secretary of the Fabian Society itself. Andrew, you are not weaselling your way out of your responsibility, you own this, and this document reflects the Fabian Society in every way the way that the collective ‘left’ always applies guilt by association to those it favours least. This document is very much the express opinion of the Fabian Society. I do see, however, that you decided to step down. Will you now front-run an investment opportunity created by your comrades in government… ethically?
See, as the United Kingdom gradually is brought to a - they hope - controlled collapse, remember who caused it. And the Fabian Parasites should absolutely be brought into the limelight, because they are absolutely not innocent in this regard. In fact, they are all over this gradual, surversive transition to scientific socialism rolled out over generations - which I will seek to document here.
But what does that word - socialism - even mean? I used to have so many discussions on exactly this topic, commonly with a handful of people who’d casually move goalposts as convenient, which is possible as you can easily drag up 10 contemporary definitions - different, of course - all suiting various purposes… or when convenient, the classic definitions can be referred to, even as part of the same conversation. It’s quite literally a pick’n’mix terms which describes everything as much as it describes nothing. Consequently, the more time I wasted on these ‘debates’ I came to just one conclusion - if there indeed was a singular definition, then it must be a heavily guarded secret - because regardless of the argument you put up, it simple disappears in a could of smoke… only to appear where you least expect it.
Thus, let’s kick off in 1956 - which by all measures was a busy year for the subversive central planners, as not only did Technocracy Inc’s3 Marion King Hubbert float the seriously misguided Peak Oil4 theory (having penned document on ‘energy certificates’ a few deades earlier), but the Report of the Committee of Three5 further decided that NATO no longer was to be a military alliance exclusively (oh they didn’t tell you?), Kenneth Boulding’s Skeleton of Science outlined General Systems Theory, noted Fabian Socialist Charles Percy Snow fabricated an artificial rift between Natural and Social Science to be exploited down the road…
… and Fabian Socialist Charles Anthony ‘Tony’ Raven Crosland penned ‘The Future of Socialism‘6 through which we quickly establish -
‘If we are to reformulate socialist doctrine, the first task is clearly to decide what precise meaning is to be attached to the word ‘socialism’…‘
Which - fortunately - it carries on by answering -
‘This is not an easy question to answer. The word does not describe any present or past society, which can be empirically observed, and so furnish unimpeachable evidence for what is or is not 'socialism'. Thus statements about socialism can never be definitely verified; and we cannot treat it as being an exact descriptive word at all. There is therefore no point in searching the encyclopaedias for a definitive meaning; it has none, and never could.‘
… and it’s meaningless. The term ‘socialism’ itself is utterly meaningless - per ‘one of their own’, so to speak.
‘… one must begin by asking what, if anything, is common to the beliefs of all, or almost all, of those who have called themselves socialists. The only constant element, common to all the bewildering variety of different doctrines, consists of certain moral values and aspirations; and people have called themselves socialist because they shared these aspirations, …‘
… the word itself is an abstract, defined through ‘shared morality’, and -
‘Thus the word first came on the modern scene with he early nineteenth-century Owenites, whom Marx contemptuously termed 'Utopian' socialists. They based their 'socialism' explicitly on an ethical view of society, a belief in a certain way of life and certain moral values.‘
… a bit of ‘ethics’ on top. Socialism is an aspiration, defined through supposed shared ethics and morality. It is absolutely meaningless.
Crosland was revisited a decade ago through ‘Is Socialism Back‘7, which further went to describe three historical definitions used by the Fabians -
1918: Nationalisation and public ownership.
1956: A set of values (Crosland).
1990: A communitarian ethic inspired by Ethical Socialism.
The first leans itself up against Marxist ideals, the second as we saw is utterly meaningless, and the final one introduces two concepts; Ethical Socialism, and a Communitarian Ethic. We will return to both, but let’s just say that these… essentially reflect their original values… which is not included in the report.
‘But that was a decade ago and doesn’t apply now’ says the ideologue, who in the same argument will refuse to provide a static definition - and that’s a good call his side, as this Autumn 2020 report8 following Keir’s accession to the Labour leadership position goes on to state -
'British socialism was a series of ethics or values, which could be applied to changing social and economic situations, rather than a rigid set of ‘demands’ or manifesto policies…'
… again, Crosland… but which should further be more than obvious to everyone, as Labour within minutes of forming a government chock full of Fabian parasites decided to wholesale ignore their election manifesto. Well, apart from all their unfunded spending promises, of course. Those they will keep.
‘Starmer, by contrast, must construct a popular programme in the midst of the climate emergency, technological disruption, mass unemployment and a pandemic…, the crucial gift Crosland bestows is an understanding that socialist values can be reapplied regardless of context or circumstance. Values are what give us an enduring appeal, transcendent of time and place. As long as we do not fix on particular personalities or policies (as some are now proposing), Labour can prosper‘
There is no climate emergency, and the alleged pandemic caused the mass unemployment - which they not only fully9 supported10, but in fact demanded even more of11. And if it appears as though Labour offer nothing but vague rhetoric, entirely void of substance… it’s because Crosland essentially suggested broadening their already lacking definition of socialism into an election manifesto.
Keir Starmer’s Labour party stands for quite literally nothing. The Labour Party is nothing short of a cynic, manipulative, exploitative, corrupt… Fabian Lie.
And that is NOT lending support to the Conservative Party, who I absolutely think deserve no more but complete destruction for selling out their own.
I wish to focus primarily on the more contemporary, but we do have to understand how the Fabian Society came to be - and why. And first stop - why not their own document, ‘A History of the Fabian Society‘12 courtesy of the Fabian Society themselves who have since removed the document from their site. But it’s not terribly interesting regardless, though a few things we can glean -
‘The first Fabians, who had been meeting in 1883 as the Fellowship of the New Life, hit upon their new name at a meeting on 4th January 1884 in the London home of Edward Pease, a young solicitor. They were earnest, romantic and middle class—characteristics not uncommon in the Society over the next century. Their aim was ‘to help in the reconstruction of society in accordance with the highest moral possibilities’.‘
Thus the origin is the Followship of the New Life, they were not of working class stock, and their aim was the reconstruction of society… on the back of morality. What a surprise, eh?
‘By 1945 229 Labour MPs were Fabians, and the modern Society has been enriched by the work of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Tony Wright, Tony Crosland, Richard Titmuss, Peter Townsend, Brian Abel-Smith and Tony Benn.‘
Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, of course. And the number 229 should really be somewhat of an indicator. Because in that election Labour won 393 seats out of a total of 640, meaning 36% of the House of Commons were Fabian Parasites. And though the contemporary number is down, it’s still 14113 and thus a way excessive 22%.
‘The New Statesman was born in 1913 in the Old Rectory at Liphook, the far-sighted midwife being Beatrice Webb and the occasion one of her talent-spotting house parties. It was to be the national voice of Fabianism.‘
And the ever-so hard left New Statesman was essentially their propaganda organ.
The next document we find is Mark Bevir’s report on ‘THE RISE OF ETHICAL ANARCHISM IN BRITAIN 1885-1900‘14.
‘The new anarchism emerged principally from the Fellowship of the New Life, a discussion circle formed around Thomas Davidson, a much-travelled philosopher. The Fellowship broke with the founders of the Fabian Society in order to concentrate on spiritual and moral issues, not economic and political ones.‘
… ie, the Fellowship of the New Life were the ideologues, and the Fabians were those who realised they had to become politically engaged to make an impact -
‘For several years, Mrs Wilson kept the black flag of anarchism aloft in the Fabian Society. She was a member of the Executive Committee, the host of the Hampstead Historic discussion group where the Fabians thrashed out their ideas, …‘
… and during the early days, the Fabian Society even had an outright anarchist on their executive committee.
And then we have ‘Educate, Agitate, Organize - 100 years of Fabian Socialism’15 -
‘The climate of opinion in Britain during the 1960s and 1970s was very similar to theirs, with young people becoming politically aware, dissatisfied with materialist attitudes, suspecting the inventions of their expanding world were not being used for the benefit of the many but for the enrichment of the few.‘
I like these additions. They sort of establish a basis of understanding, a more contemporary parallel from which you can operate -
‘Then, as now, the young sought spiritual leaders: in the 1870s some chose William Morris; the more politically austere chose Karl Marx; others followed the teaching of Henry George and believed that a single land-tax was the panacea for all social ills; …‘
… only for you to quickly realise that some things truly never change. Youthful innocence… and ignorance…
‘The Fabian Society was founded in order to discover not only the answers to the moral questions raised by this revolution in thought but also practical solutions to the economic and social evils of the day‘
… and the Fabian Society was launched to create practical solutions dealing with the ‘moral evils’ of the day. Yeah, this is hard, hard, hard left terrority.
‘The story has been told many times, with a little added in each telling, of how the young stockbroker, Edward Pease, invited some friends to meet in his rooms to discuss Davidson’s ideas after hearing him lecture on his philosophy. They decided to create a Fellowship of the New Life to help them reshape their own lives and become a more valuable part of society.‘
Amusingly - and predictably - a bunch of champagne socialists of the day gathered to establish how they (and especially others) should live, and the organisation came to be titled the Fellowship of the New Life.
‘… each clause was again dissected and discussed at such length that no vote was reached, but all agreed: ‘That an association be formed whose ultimate aim should be the reconstruction of Society in accordance with the highest moral possibilities’.*‘
… yes, the Fabian Society was explicitly formed to trigger a reconstruction (revolution) of society in the name of morality.
‘… all that could be agreed was that the Fellowship should recognize that the competitive system was not working and that society must be reconstructed morally.‘
… and to this end, capitalism should be abolished. See where this is heading?
But as the disagreements mounted, the Fabians split from New Life -
‘Podmore suggested that they call themselves the Fabian Society after Quintus Fabius Cunctator, a Roman general of the third century BC who, he alleged, adopted the strategy in the war against Hannibal of undermining the enemy by mobile guerilla skirmishes, denying them the opportunity for a pitched battle and delaying full-scale confrontation long after his colleagues would have plunged into the fray, all in order to select the most effective moment for launching his own, fully prepared attack.‘
… which in essence explains their tactical approach…
‘At most members’ meetings papers were read which either tentatively examined the ways in which socialism could be introduced into Britain or reviewed current financial and economic theories. Already the Fabians had convinced themselves that they were socialists, although very few of them had read any socialist literature and fewer had any knowledge of economics.‘
… and though they had fundamentally no understanding of the topic, yet they just knew they were socialists. That logically begs the question - was because it was fashionable, or because they understood the controlling aspect of the ideology -
‘The suffering of industrial workers was the root of the Society’s foundation.‘
… but - golly - did the Fabians even include such proles?
‘Marx died the year before the Fabian Society was founded. Towards the end of its first year the Executive Committee decided to learn something of his philosophy. An opportunity arose with the election of Mrs Charlotte Wilson, an ardent anarchist, to the Executive. She explained to the Fabians what anarchism meant to her and persuaded her friends to read together and analyse Marx’s Capital, then available only in French or German. Years later, Shaw recounted vivid memories of her reading it aloud and the vigorous disputes that followed. Within weeks of her arrival Bland, in a paper on revolutionary prospects, maintained that revolution on the French pattern was improbable in Britain.‘
… and when they finally decided to read Marx, rather than disagreeing on ideology they concluded that a revolution using the French as a template was improbable? In other words, they were fine with the revolution, but wanted to find a better approach!
‘The only tract published in 1885, To Provident Landlords and Tenants, warned that socialism in England would force all members of the upper class to work for their living; to forestall a revolution, they should hand over all undeveloped land to the peasants, …‘
… which signals definite alignment with Marx.
‘As the Society approached its second birthday members thought some simple explanation of socialism should be produced... They needed something short and readable to sell at lectures and meetings to explain the difference between the two kinds of socialism preached in England, collectivism and anarchism. Engels was their first choice as author; he refused, probably deterred by the members’ claiming the right to amend pamphlets before publication.‘
… and even asked Engels to author their sales material. In the end, the duty fell upon Mrs Wilson (the anarchist in the executive) -
‘Her anarchists were no bomb-throwing revolutionaries; they were individualists who proclaimed the maxim, ‘To each according to his need, from each according to his ability’, and believed that when people were freed from economic, political and social restraints crime would disappear and every man would be able to devote himself to his chosen work.‘
… who clearly subscribed to the more absurd of Marx’s visions, though -
‘Tempering idealism with a touch of realism she admitted that society might sink into mediocrity if all restraints were removed without compensatory cultivation of moral standards.‘
… yet ignored that ‘cultivation’ of ‘moral standards’ - ie, ethics education - won’t create sewage workers, hazardous materials removal workers, and crime scene cleaners.
‘An article in the Morning Post ridiculed the Fabians for holding their meetings not in the scruffy halls where dangerous socialists might be expected to gather, but in the affluent house of one of its members.'‘
… yet I’m sure those champagne socialists invited lots of those industrial workers whose suffering they so deeply cared about, right?
‘Since meetings were then attracting large audiences Annie Besant suggested extending the rules to allow the formation of local branches.‘
Annie Besant? Oh really?
‘Instead of declaring that the Fabian Society existed to promote the reconstruction of society so as to secure the general welfare, the new version stated baldly: ‘The Fabian Society consists of Socialists.’ Three years of talking had finally convinced Fabians that they were indeed socialists. The Basis now stated far more uncompromisingly that the Society was working for the extinction of private property in land and ‘for the transfer to the community of such industrial Capital as can conveniently be managed socially’.‘
Ie, they were communists, except -
‘But even now, Fabians did not consider themselves revolutionaries; they still believed in the gradual spread of socialist opinions producing social and political change.‘
.. slow walked ones. Ideologically, they were absolutely aligned with the worst, most left-wing ideological revolutionaries, without the shadow of a doubt, and -
‘The Fabians, themselves predominantly middle class, intended to draw politically powerful people into their orbit and persuade them to act in the interests of socialism even if they could not convert them wholly.‘
… they fundamentally did not rise from the workers, and they settled upon a course of slow walked communism through subtle influence, ie manipulation.
Thus, the Fabian Society’s ideological background is one which -
Rose from middle-class England, and not the workers.
Were principally aligned with Marxist Socialism.
Even requested Engels author their sales brochure.
Wanted capitalism abolished, and land confiscated.
Ultimately settled on a slow-walked, manipulative revolution.
Their propaganda organ would be the New Statesman.
Facilitating instrument was to be claimed morality, through ethical education.
And none other but Annie Besant was involved, early on.
Oh, but what did happen to the ‘New Life’ post-split? We have to dig a bit further, but through Edward E Pease’s “History of the Fabian Society”16 we find -
‘The New Life, which continued to exist for fifteen years. Its chief achievement was the publication of a quarterly paper called “‘ Seedtime,’’? issued from July, 1889, to February, 1898. The paper contains articles on Ethical Socialism, the Simple Life, Humanitarianism, the Education of Children, and similar subjects. The Society was conducted much on the same lines as the Fabian Society : …‘
… humanitarianism, education of children, and… Ethical Socialism.
Thus, the prevailing ‘definition’ of socialism allegedly used by the Fabians themselves in the day of Blair and Brown can in fact be traced back to the very foundational beginnings of organisations which center around the ideals of Marxist Socialism, where the primary difference reside with the methods for the achievement of said.
As for communitarianism… well, 1998 saw the release of the paper ‘A Communitarian Note on Stakeholder Theory‘17, which stated that -
‘… a shift from a shareholder approach to a stakeholder approach towards corporate governance. These include the pioneering work by R. Edward Freeman, … should also be noted that Tony Blair recently stated his support for the stakeholder model…‘
And following on, we find the ‘Stakeholders, politics and power : Towards an understanding of stakeholder identification and salience in government‘18 from 2010 which states that -
‘The notion of a “stakeholder” is central to many of the proposed solutions to the problem of democratic deficit and the term has become fashionable in contemporary political discourse (e.g. Blair, 1996; Stoney and Winstanley, 2001)‘
… not only did it become a fashionable term during Blair, but -
‘… stakeholding has also become commonplace among business and political leaders – a trend given considerable impetus through its use in so-called “third way” political thought epitomised by the “New Labour” project of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.‘
.. it even had its own, localised term - The Third Way.
And as for the ‘Third Way’… that leads us to the Fabian Society article ‘Onwards and Upwards’19 which goes on to state that ‘It was the Fabian Society which gave us voice to describe the ‘Third Way’ long before Anthony Giddens coined the phrase in the 1990s‘, which promptly triggers a search for a combination of keywords revealing… a missing tract in jstor’s otherwise formidable collection20.
Tony Blair’s 1998 Fabian Society tract titled… The Third Way.
And while coming up short locating this document, I have found a few related sources, including a critique by ‘Patrick Harrington and the real Third Way‘21 which states that -
‘Some critics have stated or implied that Tony Blair and New Labour (NuLab) have not clearly stated what they mean by the Third Way‘
Which, of course, is utterly unsurprising, yet Blair states -
‘The Third Way is a serious reappraisal of social democracy, reaching deep into the values of the Left to develop radically new approaches‘
… which really is terribly interesting phrasing, because if the strategy was to use corporate governance to reach the objective of socialism through arbitrary, yet weaponised definitions of ‘ethis’ - wait, isn’t that exactly what we see happening?
‘Tony Blair argues that: "The democratic impulse needs to be strengthened by finding new ways to enable citizens to share in decision-making that affects them. For too long a false antithesis has been claimed between 'representative' and 'direct' democracy. The truth is that in a mature society representatives will make better decisions if the take full account of popular opinion and encourage public debate on the big decisions affecting people's lives."‘
… and this aligns with a stakeholder approach, because the claim is that said ‘strengthens our democracy’ which of course is a complete lie, but the nod in the direction of the ‘public debate’ related to civil society organisations, which primarily comprise those NGOs we’ve come to love so much, but these also comprise the third party (public, private, civil society) of those ‘trisectoral networks’… oh wait -
‘The Blair project has also been simply seen in terms of "triangulation"‘
This does appear aligned with Kofi Annan reforms, and the fundamental vision which corrupted the United Nations in the 1990s.
We finally have the report ‘Revisionism Revisited - The Third Way and European Social Democracy‘ from the year 2000, which I include for one primary reason -
‘With this qualification, a mixture of statements on trends and descriptions of situations does coalesce into a picture - still a hazy one - of a „knowledge-based service society“ (according to the Schröder-Blair document), „information society“ or „reflexive modernity“ (Anthony Giddens and Ulrich Beck). According to the discourse of the Third Way, this society has the following characteristics.‘
They had no idea. They had utterly no idea what this was all about, because this was penned in the most insanely, subvertise, manipulated way imagineable. They hid true intent behind complex, opaque terminology, and tedious and boring reports, going around in circles as to what the hell the Third Way even entails.
They lied to the common people. And let me take the opportunity to repeat the quote made by none other but David Blunkett (above) -
‘It was the Fabian Society which gave us voice to describe the ‘Third Way’ long before Anthony Giddens coined the phrase in the 1990s’‘
Consequently, the Fabian Society is absolutely responsible for bringing the ‘stakeholder approach’ governance to the United Kingdom.
And I will now do something I truly thought I’d never do - source the Socialist Worker of all22, and with whom I don’t think I have much in common… apart from hatred of all things ‘New Labour’ it would appear -
‘Brown… achieved a breakthrough in social democratic thinking. He concluded that the only way a Labour government could possibly increase government expenditure was if the capitalist class was in a position to make a substantial profit out of it. This gave birth to the public private partnership (PPP) and the private finance initiative (PFI), which sees private firms build public buildings and then charge extortionate rents and maintenance costs‘
Which of course is absolutely correct -
‘… it was under Labour that the privatisation of the NHS began‘
… which, again, is absolutely correct - but not for quite the reasons you believe as a champagne socialist could tell you, oh let me drum you up an example -
‘For a while, Blunkett even had a column in the Sun newspaper, worth £150,000 a year‘
Blunkett is a member of the Fabian Society, but he was also part of Gordon Brown’s government, and -
‘In July 2007 the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, asked me to chair a working group reviewing the role and place of the voluntary, community and not for profit sector – sometimes referred to generically as the Third Sector – for future policy developments‘
This resulted in the 2008 Fabian Society report - ‘Mutual Action, Common Purpose: Empowering the Third Sector‘23 -
‘… we need a different relationship between government and governed; between people and elected representatives; and between civil society and formal politics. In a pluralistic democracy, in an ever changing and therefore more threatening world, this is important not simply in enabling people to help themselves – it is in fact essential to maintain a civilised and civilising society.‘
It’s critical, essential, yada yada. It always is -
‘… this cannot be done without… local and central government, but often from foundations and those prepared to engage in Corporate Social Responsibility‘
Ah, he’s making a call for Corporate Social Responsiblity, which essentially boils down to a set of arbitrary ethics. And as for those foundations -
‘Philanthropy and Corporate Social Responsibility‘
Surely not!
‘Sadly, the generosity of individuals is not always matched in this country by the extent of corporate giving and the development of corporate social responsibility – which can be seen particularly in the United States‘
… and it should be entirely predictable what comes next -
‘It is encouraging that even those enterprises affected by the world financial destabilisation have in the main continued to back their Foundations and Trusts‘
… yes. It’s an advertisement for American-style tax-exempt foundations, used as tax shelter for corporatations, feasting upon taxpayer money. It’s corruption at the highest level - as advocated by Fabian Socialist David Blunkett himself.
See the point here is that those businesses who get to ‘participate’ in this free cash bonanza courtesy of the taxpayer will have to accept their ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’. And that is expressly where those ‘Ethics’ rear their head.
I have spent months systamically documenting how ‘Ethics’ are corrupting our societies, even outlined how these manufactured, garbage claims of being ‘ethic’ is nothing short of a front for the global, scientific socialist revolution. The Socialist Worker above is correct - but only because they don’t grasp why those Fabian parasites are doing as they are.
Their entire strategy revolves - in good, Marxist tradition - around lying, manipulating and conceiling genuine intent. And to that extent, let’s just have a quick look at other historical Fabians, because a primary driver of the idiotic ‘Spaceship Earth’ hypothesis was Barbara Ward, who incidentally also founded the IIED, and co-authored ‘Only One Earth’ with Rene Dubos of the Rockefeller University… oh yeah, and went to sit as a trustee of the Conservation Foundation in 1976. And they, in 1980, penned a significant report on Air Pollution Offsets, from where you can navigate a straight path to contemporary Carbon Trading. which will ultimately end up being the asset, backed by those Central Bank Digital Currencies they currently attempt to roll out.
The primary missing ingredient here is Digital ID, and that initiative started in 2006… with Tony Blair and Clare Sullivan, who by sheer coincidence now works in the very same division of Georgetown which deals with Global Surveillance.
I have in all seriousness documented this entire trail, and every single article should be chock full of links to relevant sources.
And while slightly outside the scope but entirely relevant - Rene Dubos penned recommendation 3 of the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference, the one which led to the establishment of… honestly, there’s just too much for me to list here, but Global Surveillance and Biosphere Reserves are two major points - but make sure you read what’s in the box in blue… and then compare the latter to what you see in the April, 2024 draft of the WHO Pandemic Agreement.
And those UNESCO Biosphere Reserves are then monetised for carbon credits through the Global Environment Facility, through Landscape Approach Blended Finance deals modelled on the back of 2008 CDOs and thus structured to collapse - leaving the public taxpayer holding the bag, while the private ‘investor’ collects the Collateral. Yes, I very much documented that entire trail as well - I even created a handy 20-step guide to understanding how this Public-Private-Partnership mechanism works in detail. It’s a crime scene, in short.
![WHO Pandemic Agreement [April, 2024]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_140,h_140,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fb69c8066-0498-4924-af63-1344abb2ec85_1206x612.png)
We can then speculate as to who else is a Fabian parasite… Julian Huxley, perhaps… Russell Brand, even - whose book about a ‘Pied Piper’ stands out, not least because it looks just a tad like him. Of course, he recently became a new Christian… having voiced practically strictly monist views for at least the past decade.
Not that I accuse him of anything, but let’s just say I certainly don’t trust him. As for Huxley… well, we all know of him, but he essentially wanted to Build Back Better through Ethical Humanism.
And that creates an excellent opportunity to introduce an article of theirs from 2018 - ‘Marxism revisited‘24 -
’Hardt and Negri proposed a break with the category of the working class in the wake of a crisis of work in capitalist society… traditional class base of the left is replaced by a new urban, networked and educated youth – a multitude in all but name‘
Which without the shadow of a doubt has taken place -
‘This was encased in an enthusiasm for the new economy’s ‘multitude’ of ‘immaterial labourers’. Today, the most interesting quarters of the Labour left adapt this to fit new times. A narrative of left modernity and progress is built around a specific take on Marx’s value theory and the substitution of human labour – the working class – with technology. This, the theory goes, is something to be celebrated – indeed accelerated.’
… the reason why is because they envision a future where the working class has been replaced - by technology. And it is quite simply unbelievable how well that fits in, because -
‘Whilst the most astute advocates of this position claim to avoid charges of technological determinism – that technological change will automatically accomplish social and political transformations – the implication remains that we must adapt our politics to match the march of the machines, rather than vice versa‘
… that is expressly what I outlined towards the end of the article on Elon Musk, which ultimate also included meantion of -
‘A hybrid combination of tech savvy utopianism and an oddly voguish transhumanism has emerged. One that pivots around a highly selective reading of Marx’s posthumously rediscovered but seemingly prophetic ‘Fragment on Machines’ and an embrace of a specific strain of continental philosophical abstraction‘25.
Another Marx is indeed possible, it appears. And this one could potentially even include people who you’d never suspect. And again, that’s not accusing anyone, but people should certainly be invited to comment.
But before continuing with the current generation of Fabian Socialists, let’s take a closer look at the Blair/Brown generation, starting with the man who launched said ‘Third Way’ revolution. Because Tony Blair - he, too, is a prominent Fabian Socialist. In fact, it was he who in 2006 unveiled the newly installed Fabian Window26 at the London School of Economics.
And he penned a couple of pamphlets… ‘Let Us Face the Future’27, and ‘Socialism’28. But we also see contributions from John Prescott29 who served as Blair’s Deputy Prime Minister from 1997 to 2007, and Margaret Hodge30 who served in various capacities under Blair and Brown, including as Minister of State for Work, and Minister of State for Culture and Tourism.
And Tony Blair in the year 2000 delivered the speech ‘Global Politics And Global Ethic‘31 with none other but Hans Kung himself - who on behalf of the 1993 Parliament of the World’s Religions drafted ‘Towards a Global Ethics’32, incidentally discussed up near the top.
Yes, there it is again - Global Ethics.
Gordon Brown, he wrote the pamphlet ‘Fair is Efficient‘33, with further contributions added through disgraced Peter Mandelson34 who in spite of twice being forced to resign from the Cabinet, Gordon Brown still somehow managed to find a space for during his time as Prime Minister, and Liam Byrne35 who served in Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Cabinet from 2008 to 2010.
Following his 2010 exit from Number 10, beyond manipulating the Scottish people during their independence referendum36 he also chaired the ‘Global Citizenship Commission‘37 established in 2013, featuring a star-studded panel, including Klaus Schwab and noted power couple; Emma Rothschild and World Governance seeking Collegium International’s man-of-action Amartya Sen.
But that commission actually met earlier, with a purpose of -
‘The Global Citizenship Commission (GCC), designed to reflect on that progress and the demands of the future, was born in the classroom. With the guidance of John Sexton, President of New York University Introduction 3 (NYU) from 2002 to 2015, the Commission’s members met in a series of seminars to discuss the UDHR’s continuing relevance and contribution to the development of a global ethic.‘
The - sigh - Development of a Global Ethic.
In 2010, the Fabians published another Gordon Brown atrocity titled ‘Why the Right is Wrong’38 which goes on to detail -
‘We have important duties to human beings, wherever they live. We live in a global society, and must develop a sense of global citizenship‘
… and there’s the call for the Global Citizenship., which should of course come about through Julian Huxley’s UNESCO and hence education39… and as I’ve detailed repeatedly centre around Global Ethics40… and never mind Jeffrey D Sachs being a frequent contributor to same ‘Global Commons Review’. That’s a coincidence.
.. and speaking of which, the Fabian Society in 2018 published ‘Redressing the balance‘41, which in an unbelievable fashion goes to push outstanding lies such as
‘… people on the left do not seem to acknowledge the role the education system plays in reinforcing right-wing values‘
Which, frankly, is a breathtaking lie, given the contemporary emphasis on discarding all traditionalist values, the through and through teaching of ‘tolerance’ (while our landmarks burn and status are torn down), all with an increased focus on including quack science in the curriculum… oh yeah, and that other thing…
‘As socialists, we believe in valuing co-operation and we want people to consider others, to value diversity, and to feel connections to nature and responsibility for those less fortunate than themselves. On the left, ethical and moral values are central. We want to see change in society – which, in a democratic culture, requires people to be able to reflect critically on society while having a moral compass‘
Yet, that same ‘morality’ also includes phasing in 'stakeholder approach’ corporate governance through a ‘Third Way’, including foundations in contract negotiations, and embracing an approach of three-way policing, where those standing up for traditional values will feel the full force of the police - while ignoring children being murdered, and incidents in front of police stations… all instructed through a political class, who feign incompetence while generally exempting themselves, with Ursula von der Leyen being an extraordinary example.
But let’s step a little back in time, because in 2003 the Fabian Society published ‘Progressive Globalisation Towards an international social democracy‘42 which deserves closer scrutiny. We drop in on the reports’ sixth chapter which details -
‘… the current system of global governance has deep flaws‘
… but fortunately they have the solution (lucky us) -
‘Some rest on universal, supranational values transcending particular national or other interests – notably the edifice of international law, including the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Convention and the International Criminal Court.‘
… and we’re back to Gordon Brown, and we’re back to Global Ethics.
‘A few newer, specialist international institutions, such as the Global Environmental Facility and the International Fund for Agricultural Development, have wider ‘stakeholder’ representation drawing in civil society institutions with relevant interests.’
’… it is difficult to say that this rather chaotic system of global governance is legitimate in any democratic sense.‘
Oh no, that’s actually a very easy question to answer. It is definitely not.
‘This is partly because of the absence of equivalent lobbies from the trade union movement and NGOs. In national democracies civil society and its organisations play a vital role in scrutinising government and representing social interests to it. While we may now just about speak of a ‘global civil society’ – with increasing numbers of NGOs, trade unions, faith groups and so on now operating at an international level and coordinating their actions with others from different countries – its ability to influence international governance is still extremely weak.‘
… a call for the third component of trisectoral governance.
‘A particular characteristic of the uncoordinated nature of the system is that it carries little common purpose. The United Nations does its best, through programmes such as the Millennium Goals for poverty reduction and the various initiatives for sustainable development arising out of the 1992 Earth Summit…‘
And we have the purpose, which at present amount to those SDGs, and we have the Rio Summit which launched the UNFCCC and the CBD, leading to the cashing out mechanism…
… and this is then followed by claims of ‘democratic legitimacy’ (an outside interest get to control elections), demands for a ‘global constitution’, a ‘World Parliament or Government’ even, ‘pooled sovereignty’ which is a scam of course, and the gradual elimination of the national veto, and the Security Council to also consider ‘poverty and environmental degradation’ sufficient cause for… well, at least now it should be clear why they’re building up ‘peace force’ capacity, eh?
‘The second principle therefore is that of democratic pluralism. The global governance system should accommodate not just nation states, but the overlapping layers of state and civil society institutions including regional and local government and supranational bodies such as the European Union. It should provide open structures for participation by organisations from Progressive Globalisation civil society, including NGOs, trade unions and businesses. There should be a principle of ‘stakeholder’ representation…‘
What they suggest is a global coup d’etat. It really is that simple. Eliminate borders, eliminate everything, except for trisectoral governance ultimately controlled through those who dictate what is ‘ethical’. And this system of Global Governance -
‘… makes a significant constitutional appeal to a notion of universal human values and rights above those simply granted by sovereign states‘
… which sends us back to Gordon Brown, but further -
‘Fourth, a more social democratic system of global governance would seek a stronger sense of purpose and coordination through the United Nations.‘
… it should all run through the United Nations.
‘Finally, democratic legitimacy requires that international institutions are subject to proper external scrutiny.‘
… thus creating even further top-down bureaucracy in control of few hands -
‘Ultimately if a new global constitution is to be built, a new sense of global citizenship will have to be constructed with it. The increasing awareness of global interdependence among ordinary people throughout the world, promoted by new communications and media, is already apparent. A vibrant form of global civil society is developing in response‘
… and we’re back to the Global Citizenship rolled out through education and consequently - UNESCO.
Finally, let’s quickly zip through the conclusion -
‘an end to the system that subsidises, protects and favours the largest agricultural producers in the developed economies‘
… which of course leads to not only higher prices for the end consumer, but also a vast increase in the cost of fertiliser and fuel… which will also impact your bills.
‘the rewriting of the WTO rules on intellectual property rights…‘
… which I have a sneaky suspicion would financially benefit a particular individual..
‘the universal right to trade union membership to be built in to the conditions for governments to receive development aid and financial support and, ultimately, to be enshrined in an international treaty‘
… which entails the 3rd world accepting… whatever the usurious terms would be -
‘economic incentives for governments to uphold and enhance standards for employees, consumers and the environment to be built into international agreements and treaties‘
… one of which of course would be arbitrary environmental regulation.
‘the establishment of a planned migration policy based on international cooperation…‘
… aka the Global Compact for Migration -
‘representation in institutions of global governance should be expanded to include key stakeholders affected by decisions. This would include representation for local, regional and supranational government, non-governmental organisations, trade unions and business‘
… and business - naturally - should be looped straight in at the top, bypasing all resemblance of democracy.
‘ultimately, all major international economic institutions to be based on the principle of one-member, one-vote‘
… which you might agree with but -
‘the UN Security Council to be expanded to include new permanent members from Asia, Africa and Latin America. There should also be a reduction in the power of the national veto and an expansion of its remit to include consideration of non-military security threats such as poverty and environmental degradation‘
… which will so obviously immediately be used to discriminate against Western democracies.
Before we arrive with Keir Starmer’s Labour Party, let’s loop in the December, 2019 report on the very eve of the alleged pandemic - ‘Trials and errors‘43 -
‘… every single clinical trial requires approval from an ethics committee before it begins... centrally archived by the Health Research Authority (HRA) in London…‘
… whatever thoughts you have in this regard, do be aware that the labour report suggests public funding of clinical trials, which of course should be administrated through… yes, a stakeholder approach44.
And as I see this in the media relating to New Zealand, the principles we rely on here are the Helsinki Ethical Principles45 which in principle 37 states -
‘In the treatment of an individual patient, where proven interventions do not exist or other known interventions have been ineffective, the physician, after seeking expert advice, with informed consent from the patient or a legally authorised representative, may use an unproven intervention if in the physician’s judgement it offers hope of saving life, re-establishing health or alleviating suffering‘
… I’m sure you can see how that fits in with forced vaccination, etc, not least because if you head over to the ‘International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans‘46 you’ll find that -
‘… when it is not possible or feasible to obtain the informed consent of participants, research interventions or procedures that offer no potential individual benefits must pose no more than minimal risks. However, a research ethics committee may permit a minor increase above minimal risk when it is not possible to gather the necessary data in another population or in a less risky or burdensome manner, and the social and scientific value of the research is compelling‘
… ie, they can justify as being for the common good.
-
And with all of that said, let’s take a look at Keir Starmer’s Labour. And let’s start by carrying on in a similar vein, with the 2021 document ‘Prescription for Fairness - Remedying Health Inequalities in a Post-Covid Era‘47, which details that -
‘Tackling these deeply ingrained health inequalities and improving population health is a driving mission of mine and will be a key priority for a Keir Starmerled Labour government‘
But, of course, all is not what it appears, because what they speak of is the Determinants of Health which are - and I’m absolutely serious here - aggregate surveillance data used to enforce equality. It’s straight up surveillance Marxism, and those who disagree, do read the 2008 WHO SDoH report as contributed to by Michael Marmot and the Collegium International socialists.
… in fact, Michael Marmot himself received a mention in the document itself, which is absolutely littered with mention of the various types of surveillance data indicators.
... which is then further promoted twice by the Fabian48 Society49 itself.
Immigration next. This topic I dealt with in detail in Jeffrey D Sachs’ ode to Marxism through ‘Ethics in Action for Sustainable Development’.
… but in short, not only should we openly invite, we should prepare a society to take in a colossal stream, put signposts up for migrants to locate the United Kingdom, and allow newcomers to work almost immediately thus competing with locals, and they will - of course, of bloody course as argued by mr “Global Governance through Global Ethics’ himself aka Jeffrey D Sachs - be allowed to engage in the political process almost immediately. In a ‘participatory’ and ‘include’ way, of course.
And why is that ‘of course’ - well, why don’t we have the United Nations explain50.
And this is then weaponised for political expedience by applying one-sided policing, where those standing up for traditional values are cracked down hard upon - even if they did so because of deaths of children - while going soft on ‘the marginalised’. And why would they do that, you ask? For political expedience. For express political expedience. It’s how radical, extremist parties push through authoritarian agendas.
And we’re hardly five minutes into the Fabian Society Administration before EXACTLY that happens. GOLLY - another coincidence!
Next, and 2023, none other but Angela Rayner spoke at the ‘Working for you: A manifesto for the self-employed launch with Angela Rayner MP‘51 event, which of course is fully expected to broadcast gross ignorance on the topic itself…
And we don’t need to read far into the report52 to cement that -
‘Despite their contribution, self-employed people get a raw deal. They are more exposed to the ebbs and flows of the business cycle, difficulties with customers such as late payment or underpayment, and the challenges of life events. They lack the protections employees rightly expect, such as sick pay, parental rights and pensions; unsurprisingly, three-quarters don’t believe they have sufficient workplace rights compared with employees.’
… no, they absolutely do not have the faintest clue as each and every single one of those is reflected through a higher daily rate, but it even continues -
’This disquiet came to a head during the pandemic: 88 per cent of self-employed workers did not feel the support they received fairly reflected their tax contributions, and half say their experience during the pandemic has made them less likely to want to be self-employed.’
… because crooks for no legit reason decided to lock down the nation - yet to which policies Labour only ever criticised for being too soft. It continues by, in net effect, promising to create an even more hospitable environment to business, ensuring the gap in finances will only continuously spiral.
But this, of course, was supposed to be about Keir Starmer, so let’s start with ‘Congratulations to Keir Starmer and Angela Reyner‘53 released in 2020 -
‘The Fabian Society is delighted to congratulate Keir Starmer on his election as leader of the Labour party. Keir is a member of the Fabian Society’s executive committee and joins the long line of Labour leaders who have been prominent Fabians.’
.. incidentally, a member of their executive committee, but further states that -
‘Congratulations also to Angela Rayner on her election as deputy leader. Angela is also an active member of the Fabian Society. Both Keir and Angela have frequently written for the Fabian Society and addressed our conferences and events‘
… their 2nd in charge - Reyner - indeed also is a prominent Fabian Parasite.
And ole’ Keir - he’s a moral man54, of course. Very moral55. Exceedingly moral56. And never mind Jimmy Savile57, nor 3 dead children58.
So what does he actually stand for? Let’s find out through Keir’s 2021 report ‘The Road Ahead‘59, incidentally also the title of Bill Gates’s first book.
And let’s establish one thing above all. This is published by the Fabian Society. Consequently, absolutely everything will be a manipulative, distorted lie. You can count on absolutely everything having a double meaning, or as Hillary Clinton would say - a ‘private’ one. Or you can call it out as it is - Aesopian language.
We start out with claims about the alleged pandemic, carries on speaking of security, includes that we must all contribute (aka human rights and responsibilities), that governments must give foundations lots of taxpayer cash through public-private-partnerships, insertions of meaningless words such as ‘fair’, education like UNESCO’s Global Citizenship, alleged climate change, and then sets out 10 key principles. for our interdependent (collectivist), speaks of tough decisions, and the need to ‘nurture the bonds between our people and build a stronger union. One where our nation is remade’ which refers to the endless stream of migration they will welcome, because it they believe it will lead to them being able to trigger the Marxist revolution. All in all, this is about a contribution society (arbitrarily upheld),
The ten principles include -
Promises of ‘being rewarded fairly’, which of course is meaningless but it allows them a possibility to insert a good commie judge into the system.
‘People and businesses are expected to contribute to society‘ which will be used to tax business to the ground, leading to a nation where people increasingly are forced to sell out their property and thus become entirely dependent upon the state.
‘Your chances in life should not be defined by the circumstances of your birth’, which again can be used to justify anything related to immigration.
‘Families, communities… must once again be put above individuals’ which is an implicit call for interdependence aka collectivism.
‘The economy should work for citizens and communities’ thus justifying increasing levels of taxation as they increasingly spend money on election bribery.
‘The role of government is to be a partner to private enterprise’, by which they mean public-private-partnerships, though possibly you, should your business accept increasingly absurd ‘ethics’ declarations through the likes of ESG or CSR.
The reference to ‘current levels of waste’ appears somewhat hypocritical as they in the 2010 election claimed that no waste was taking place, then spoke of years of austerity, so where said waste should suddenly have arrived I’d actually like to know as it appears to run express counter to their many, many, many, many, many lies expressed repeatedly in rhythmic repetition. Allegedly it works after a while.
‘Restoring honesty’… said the guy who let Jimmy Savile off the hook - and he really did, he was in charge at the time, and no amount of weasel words will change that.
‘transparency in public life’ sure, I’ll believe the words of a ‘think tank’ which frames everything in the most intellecturally dishonest fashion possible.
‘We are proudly patriotic but we reject the divisiveness of nationalism’; par for the course - as idiotic as that indeed appears, given you’re dealing with pathological liars completely incapable of telling the truth.
Of course, the Labour Party somehow managed to win, primarily because people hated the Conservative Party even more. That’s the only reason they won the election. And it’s at this stage I’d like to remind you that the Labour Party, on their own website, explicitly stated in the run-up to the election60 -
‘Labour will restore confidence in government and ensure ministers are held to the highest standards. We will establish a new independent Ethics and Integrity Commission, with its own independent Chair, to ensure probity in government‘
They are facilitating the creation of an ‘Ethics Panel’ on governance itself. This is how they plan the global coup d’etat. It’s happening in the United Stats through the SCOTUS ‘code of conduct’61, and it’s happening here.
Once those ‘Ethics Declarations’ intending to silence everyone (or you’ll be fired, much like those doctors during Covid), the final hurdle will become free speech.
And they are already hard at work on that account.
But, hey, we have a bit of time before they start to working on that, no62? I mean, surely it’s not that much of a priority, is it?
Keir Starmer is legitimately dangerous. But, in the grander scheme, nowhere as dangerous as that ‘think tank’ preferring to live in the shadows.
https://www.globalcommonsreview.org/article-13-global-citizenship-as-a-new-ethics-in-the-world-system.html
I started a Fabian Society graph, and included this article:
https://embed.kumu.io/ba91be849a6fac57aabe72e52123778a
5 star next level research! Fyi- United STATES ;-)
''They are facilitating the creation of an ‘Ethics Panel’ on governance itself. This is how they plan the global coup d’etat. It’s happening in the United Stats through the SCOTUS ‘code of conduct’61, and it’s happening here''