eventually gave competition to the hard-core Marxists. Some of the more erudite members

of the wealthy and intellectual classes of England formed an organization to perpetuate the

concept of collectivism but not exactly according to Marx. It was called the Fabian Society.

The name is significant, because it was in honor of Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrrucosus,

his army with delaying tactics, endless maneuvering, and avoiding confrontation wherever

possible. Unlike the Marxists who were in a hurry to come to power through direct

confrontation with established governments, the Fabians were willing to take their time, to

come to power without direct confrontation, working quietly and patiently from inside the

target governments. To emphasize this strategy, and to separate themselves from the

Marxists, they adopted the turtle as their symbol. And their official shield portrays an image

of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Those two images perfectly summarize their strategy.

It is now 1884, and we find ourselves in Surrey, England observing a small group of

these Fabians, sitting around a table in the stylish home of two of their more prominent

members, Sydney and Beatrice Webb. The Webbs later would be known world wide as the

founders of the London School of Economics. Their home eventually was donated to the

Fabian Society and became its official headquarters. Around the table are such well-known

figures as George Bernard Shaw, Arnold Toynbee, H.G. Wells, and numerous others of

similar caliber. By the way, the Fabian Society still exists, and many prominent people are

members, not the least of which is England’s Ex Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

H.G. Wells wrote a book to serve as a guide showing how collectivism can be

that the old religions of the world must give way to the new religion of collectivism. The

new religion should be the state, he said, and the state should take charge of all human

activity with, of course, elitists such as himself in control. On the very first page, he says:

“This book states as plainly and clearly as possible the essential ideas of my life, the

perspective of my world…. This is my religion. Here are my directive aims and the criteria

of all I do.”1

When he said that collectivism was his religion, he was serious. Like many

collectivists, he felt that traditional religion is a barrier to the acceptance of state power. It is

a competitor for man’s loyalties. Collectivists see religion as a device by which the clerics

keep the downtrodden masses content by offering a vision of something better in the next

world. If your goal is to bring about change, contentment is not what you want. You want

of revolutionary change. Wells said that collectivism should become the new opiate, that it

should become the vision for better things in the next world. The new order must be built on

the concept that individuals are nothing compared to the long continuum of society, and that

only by serving society do we become connected to eternity. He was very serious.

1 H.G. Wells, The Open Conspiracy (New York: Doubleday, Doran and Co., 1928), p. vii.

dependencies and the United Sates. As a result, today’s world is very close to the vision of

H.G. Wells. A worship of the god called society has become a new religion. No matter what

insult to our dignity or liberty, we are told it’s necessary for the advancement of society, and

that has become the basis for contentment under the hardships of collectivism. The greater

good for the greater number has become the opiate of the masses.

Fabians and Marxists are in agreement over their mutual goal of collectivism, but

they differ over style and sometimes tactics. When Marxism became fused with Leninism

and made its first conquest in Russia, these differences became the center of debate between

the two groups. Karl Marx said the world was divided into two camps eternally at war with

each other. One was the working class, which he called the proletariat, and the other was the

wealthy class, those who owned the land and the means of production. This class he called

the bourgeoisie.

Fabians were never enthusiastic over this class-conflict view, probably because most

of them were bourgeoisie, but Lenin and Stalin accepted it wholeheartedly. Lenin described

the Communist Party as the “vanguard of the proletariat,” and it became a mechanism for

total and ruthless war against anyone who even remotely could be considered bourgeoisie.

When the Bolsheviks (Zionists N.M.)came to power in Russia, landowners and shopkeepers were

slaughtered by the tens of thousands.

This brutality offended the sensibilities of the more genteel Fabians. It’s not that

Fabians are opposed to force and violence to accomplish their goals, it’s just that they prefer

it as a last resort, whereas the Leninists were running amuck in Russia implementing a plan

of deliberate terror and brutality. Fabians admired the Soviet system because it was based on

collectivism but they were shocked at what they considered to be needless bloodshed. It was

a disagreement over style. When Lenin became the master of Russia, many of the Fabians

joined the Communist Party thinking that it would become the vanguard of world Socialism.

They likely would have stayed there if they hadn’t been offended by the brutality of the

regime.

To understand the love-hate relationship between these two groups we must never

lose sight of the fact that Leninism and Fabianism are merely variants of collectivism. Their

similarities are much greater than their differences. That is why their members often move

from one group to the other – or why some of them are actually members of both groups at

the same time. Leninists and Fabians are usually friendly with each other. They may

disagree intensely over theoretical issues and style, but never over goals.

Margaret Cole was the Chairman of the Fabian Society in 1955 and ‘56. Her father,

G.D.H. Cole, was one of the early leaders of the organization dating back to 1937. In her

collectivists together. She says:

It plainly emerges that the basic similarities were much greater than the

differences, that the basic Fabian aims of the abolition of poverty, through legislation

and administration; of the communal control of production and social life …, were

pursued with unabated energy by people trained in Fabian traditions, whether at the

moment of time they called themselves Fabians or loudly repudiated the name….

The fundamental likeness is attested by the fact that, after the storms produced first

those “rebel Fabians” who had not joined the Communist Party (and the many who

having initially joined it, left in all haste), together with G.D.H. Cole’s connections in

the working-class education movement and his young disciples from Oxford of the

‘twenties, found no mental difficulty in entering the revived Fabian Society of 1939 –

nor did the surviving faithful find any difficulty with collaborating with them.2

Fabians are, according to their own symbolism, wolves in sheep’s clothing, and that

explains why their style is more effective in countries where parliamentary traditions are

well established and where people expect to have a voice in their own political destiny.

effective in countries where parliamentary traditions are weak and where people are used to

dictatorships anyway.

In countries where parliamentary traditions are strong, the primary tactic for both of

these groups is to send their agents into the power centers of society to capture control from

the inside. Power centers are those organizations and institutions that represent all the

politically influential segments of society. These include labor unions, political parties,

church organizations, segments of the media, educational institutions, civic organizations,

financial institutions, and industrial corporations, to name just a few. In a moment, I am

going to read a partial list of members of an organization called the Council on Foreign

Relations, and you will recognize that the power centers these people control are classic

examples of this strategy. The combined influence of all these entities adds up to the total

political power of the nation. To capture control of a nation, all that is required is to control

its power centers, and that has been the strategy of Leninists and Fabians alike.

They may disagree over style; they may compete over which of them will dominate

the coming New World Order, over who will hold the highest positions in the pyramid of

power; they may even send opposing armies into battle to establish territorial preeminence

over portions of the globe, but they never quarrel over goals. Through it all, they are blood

brothers under the skin, and they will always unite against their common enemy, which is

any opposition to collectivism. It is impossible to understand what is unfolding in the War

on Terrorism today without being aware of that reality.

The Fabian symbols of the turtle and the wolf in sheep’s clothing are emblazoned on

a stained glass window that used to be in the Fabian headquarters. The window has been

removed, we are told, for safety, but there are many photographs showing the symbols in

great detail. The most significant part appears at the top. It is that famous line from Omar

Khayyam:

Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire

to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,

would we not shatter it to bits

and then remould it nearer to the hearts desire?

1 Syndicalism is a variant of collectivism in which labor unions play a dominant role in government and industry.

2 Margaret Cole, The Story of Fabian Socialism (Stanford, California, Stanford University Press, 1961), p. xii.

Please allow me to repeat that line. This is the key to modern history, and it unlocks the door

that hides the secret of the war on terrorism:

Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire

to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,

Elsewhere in the window there is a depiction of Sydney Webb and George Bernard

Shaw striking the earth with hammers. The earth is on an anvil, and they are striking it with

Fund. That’s what they were saying at the Ford Foundation. “War is the best way to remold

society. War! It will shatter society to bits, break it apart. Then we can remold it nearer to

the heart’s desire.” And what is their heart’s desire? Ladies and Gentlemen, it is

collectivism.