Political correctness is like a poisonous gas seeping through the air, creeping inside our national institutions and taking over our great country. Like many invisible poisonous gases, it came from behind and attacked when we least expected it. Initially we were compliant, quiet and accepting – almost in a state of shock. Despite it not sitting comfortably with our way of life, most of us just ignored it and hoped it would go away. Only now are most people waking up to the real danger that political correctness poses. Political correctness is one of the biggest peacetime threats to freedom this country has ever seen. It is also the reason for the foundation of the Campaign Against Political Correctness. The Campaign aims to make the case against political correctness at every opportunity and to act as a one-stop ideas shop and information point on the subject. It is also trying to bring like-minded people together to start the fight back against this ever-growing monster. Many people cannot understand how something so hated and controlling has managed to grow into such a beast. There are many reasons for this – our education system, politicians at all different levels, the media and our own self-censorship. However, another reason for the increase in political correctness is the politically correct interference and diktats that are foisted upon us from the European Union. This is why one of the stated ambitions of the Campaign is “to see an end to the acceptance of directives from the European Union which undermine our British way of life.” Political correctness is so widespread now that everybody has heard examples of it even if they have not directly experienced it a number of times themselves. There are many ways of defining political correctness: There is the banning of local Punch and Judy shows in case they encourage domestic violence; insulting committee chairmen by labeling them “chair” – a piece of furniture; changing words like “man” or “black” in case they cause offence; banning competitive sports days so that there are no winners or losers and stopping parents taking photographs of their children in case they are thought to be paedophiles. Then there are also the politically correct measures which are being put in place now that will have huge ramifications for the future of our country. Perhaps, not surprisingly, many of the more damaging aspects of political correctness are floating across the water from Europe. You need look no further at the contribution the European Union has made to the increase in political correctness than by examining the fury over the nomination of the Italian, Rocco Buttiglione, in October 2004 to be the European Union’s Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner. Setting aside, for now, the issue of whether or not there should even be such a job, what had this former Italian Cabinet Minister said or done that led to him being considered “unfit” to be a Commissioner? As a committed Roman Catholic, he apparently thought that homosexuality was a sin. Many Christians both here and on the continent would agree with him. Yet this genuinely held religious belief led to the withdrawal of Mr Buttiglione’s nomination. This incident shows just how much of a supreme “thought police” the European Union is for the 25 member states. The existing institutions of the European Union have contributed to the rise of political correctness in this country. It should really come as no surprise when European bureaucrats or even European judges try to impose some more of these alien concepts upon us using their existing powers under the present Treaties. As Daniel Hannan MEP pointed out in his Daily Telegraph article on 8th March 2005, supporters of the the EU have a “four-stage strategy to reduce Britons to servitude”: ‘Stage One is mock-incredulity: “No one is proposing any such thing. It just shows what loons these sceptics are that they could even imagine it.” ’Stage Two is bravado: “Well all right, it’s being proposed, but don’t worry: we have a veto and we’ll use it.” Stage Three is denial: “Look, we may have signed this, but it doesn’t really mean what the critics are claiming.” Stage Four is resignation: “No point complaining now, old man: it’s all been agreed.”’ This is the exact same sequence of events which could be used to describe the rise of political correctness – only in the case of political correctness the enemy is far less visible. There are too many examples of the way the European Union has contributed to political correctness in Britain to detail them all in this piece but, to illustrate this point, I have set out a few below: - European Institute for Gender Equality The constitution says “Equality between women and men must be ensured in all areas, including employment, work and pay. The principle of equality shall not prevent the maintenance or adoption of measures providing for specific advantages in favour of the under-represented sex.” On this basis, it will not be long before the Commission proposes job quotas and other forms of positive discrimination on an EU wide basis. Meritocracy and true equality of opportunity are the virtues which we should be extolling; not positive discrimination which is, after all, only discrimination with the word positive in front of it. Indeed, in March 2005, the European Commission was reported to be establishing the European Institute for Gender Equality. It is supposed to collect, analyse and circulate data to provide a basis for future European Union policies on gender equality and will operate with a budget of about 53 million euros for the period 2007 – 2013. - Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia Back in 1997, the European Union established a Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. This body will cost the taxpayer over 8 million euros in 2005. Notwithstanding that this is an issue which should be determined at nation state level, it has interfered with and contributed to the changes in our national law on race discrimination. Its website – ‘The primary task of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) is to provide the Community and its Member States with objective, reliable and comparable information and data on racism, xenophobia, islamophobia and anti-Semitism at the European level in order to help the EU and its Member States to establish measures or formulate courses of actions against racism and xenophobia.’ “A vision for Europe can only be a multicultural one based on the respect for diversity and equal rights”, said Ms Winkler, the Director of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia on 21st March 2005. Following a European Council meeting in December 2003, there are plans for a Human Rights or Fundamental Rights Agency. It has an extensive work programme for the year ahead – aiming to spread its politically correct ideals into the recently liberated countries of Eastern Europe. Further details can be found on: http://eumc.eu.int/eumc/material/pub/WP/wp05-en.pdf - European Arrest Warrant Whilst the European Arrest Warrant mainly demonstrates the diminishing control we have over our own country, it is also a further worrying weapon for the European Union to extend its politically correct ideas. Under the European Arrest Warrant, you could potentially be extradited from Britain for offences which are crimes in another European Union country but not in this country. For example, denial of the holocaust is a crime in Germany but not here. Although you should only be arrested for committing a crime in the country in which it is an offence, the internet and the easy distribution of material make this fact less than reassuring. In addition, the European Arrest Warrant covers “Racism and Xenophobia” which is such a grey area and is being monitored by a “thought police” that would do Orwell’s 1984 proud! The next stage in these advancing plans could well mean that the European Arrest Warrant will cover opinions which are considered offensive and not just those that are deemed likely to incite violence which would really be opening up a huge can of politically correct worms and not something the UK would resist – or have much chance of resisting – in the present climate. - Education Not content with undermining fair play in the employment market, the European Parliament recently attempted to alter the course of history – surely a blatant example of political correctness. It had published a history of Europe for schoolchildren which, in the UK section, failed to refer to the two world wars. Luckily, the booklet was withdrawn but the incident serves to provide a telling insight into the European centralisers’ mindset. Schoolchildren are already being indoctrinated about the value of the European Union – via special grants and Europe Day celebrations – and the very fact that this booklet about the history of Europe was to be distributed to schools by the European Union shows the potential for future interference and misrepresentation. - Funding of Politically Correct Groups and Projects The politically correct tentacles of the European Union also stretch even further into our national life through the subsidy culture that it operates. For example, one organisation funded by the European Social Fund is the 1990 Trust which runs the Black Information Link, a website aimed at the black community. The money given to this group – which is politically motivated and biased – enables them to perpetuate political correctness via their website (www.blink.org.uk). Some examples of their actions are noted below: Black Information Link is just one group being funded with money collected by the European Union and spent on a multitude of politically correct projects in Britain. So, the European Union has and continues to contribute to the rise of political correctness in Britain but what is in store for us in the future? For all the drama of October 2004 in the corridors of power in Brussels, I’d bet my bottom euro that we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg given that political correctness will be institutionalised in the European Constitution and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Charter itself will take full effect in the UK if we ratify (in conjunction with the other member states) the new Constitution. Although the French and Dutch people have voted against the Constitution, we should not be surprised if the European political elites work night and day to introduce both the Charter and the Constitution. History shows that they treat unfavourable referenda results as little more than an inconvenient delay. Despite the EU Constitution and the Charter it supports being voted down its politically correct provisions are being brought in by stealth. The Commission has said that it will implement it across all EU legislation without waiting for it to come into force. What is more, a Fundamental Rights Agency is being established to monitor the implementation of the Charter and make sure that its provisions will be enforced throughout the EU. This is quite clearly the illegal implementation of political correctness. The Charter is a ticking time-bomb of political correctness waiting to explode in the UK. Far from having the legal status of “the Beano” as former Europe Minister, Keith Vaz, once said, it is being granted full legal force. Perhaps in time the Charter’s provisions will be enforced by the European Gendarmerie which is also being established despite the EU Constitution being rejected. We do not even need to wait for European Court of Justice judges to interpret the law in their usual touchy-feely and highly regulatory way. It is as plain as a pikestaff that the Charter represents institutionalised political correctness. Just take the preamble which, so far as European judges are concerned, is the meaty bit in the law and the starting point for their interpretation of the other articles within the Charter: “Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity…” The preamble continues: “The Union contributes to the preservation and to the development of these common values while respecting the diversity of cultures and traditions of the peoples of Europe as well as the national identities of the member states….” The imposition of the human rights doctrine in British law does not sit well alongside our common law tradition – so how can it “respect” our national identity – our British way of doing things? This will have an impact on very important matters like the way our courts interpret our laws. Time and again, the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act (1998) have conflicted with other statute laws and they are a recipe for politically correct chaos. One only need look at the recent case involving Leeds City Council and a group of travelers. Despite the fact that Leeds City Council succeeded, the Court of Appeal referred the Leeds eviction case to the House of Lords so that the Law Lords could decide whether the “right to a home” (European human rights law) was more important than a “council’s right to evict” (British law). The Charter will compound these problems especially as it states that it “reaffirms” amongst other issues the case law emanating from both the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. The Charter and the Constitution would fetter the discretion of national Parliaments still further, extend political correctness and undermine common sense. Even if you look beyond the preamble to specific Articles within the Charter – some which eerily mirror the European Convention of Human Rights – you will find a not so favourable tapestry of political correctness being woven. Taking at random, a few examples: It doesn’t take a genius to predict that our courts are going to be log-jammed with cases based on the Charter. For example, I can easily see how the travelers’ cases – often supported with taxpayers’ money through the Commission for Racial Equality – could rely on at least 2, if not 3, of the above Articles. As European Union law is superior to our own domestic law (and planning regulations), an amendment or repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998 or even withdrawal from the European Court of Human Rights with 6 month’s notice may not be sufficient to deal with one of the most hotly debated topics of today and allow a return to common sense. Political correctness is often about a small group of people trying to foist their views on a majority, relying on the silence and decency of the majority to allow even the most bizarre of ideas to become the norm. Given this, is it not worrying that the Charter states that political parties should express the will of the people? How is the will of the people to be defined? What would happen if the will of the people was that they were in favour of free market economics or that they wanted to end or curtail Britain’s involvement with the European Union? The Charter would not allow this, given its commitment to red tape, equal rights and socialist economics as well as its clear determination for political union not political separation. One can only assume that the will of the people really means the will of the constitutional draftsmen, bureaucrats and European Court of Justice judges who will implement or develop case law based on it. Further politically correct measures from the Charter that will be enforced include: It also forces governments, at the expense of the taxpayer, to continue to provide a welfare state. So no hope of reform then for that 1940’s monster that has grown out of control The spirit of the Charter not only lives and breathes through the activities of the EU but is also likely to find its way into British law through the Government’s proposed new vehicle for institutionalised political correctness (the Equalities and Human Rights Commission) with estimates putting the annual cost for this body at around £200 million. It goes without saying that we need to tackle political correctness at all levelsincluding the European Union level. There is no doubt that the European Union has helped to increase political correctness in this country and, as history and common sense tells us, this is not about to change. In fact, to paraphrase a famous election slogan, things can (most definitely) only get worse. To stop the rot we need first of all to stop the advance of political correctness. Under no circumstances should anyone who wants to end political correctness give greater power to a body with a track record of institutionalised political correctness and with big plans for the future. This, quite simply, means that those who want to see an end to political correctness need to encourage our politicians to stop the implementation of the EU Constitution and not resurrect it after the death sentence ordered by the French and Dutch electorates. If this does not happen, and the Eurocrats continue on their merry way, then we, in the United Kingdom, will have little choice but to demand a referendum and vote against the EU’s political correctness. For further information about the Campaign Against Political Correctness see the details below: Website: www.CAPC.co.uk e-mail: info@CAPC.co.uk The European Union Contribution – So Farwww.eumc.eu.int – says: http://www.brugesgroup.com/news.live?article=8963&keyword=10 WHEN YOU HEAR ALL THREE PARTIES PRACTISING WHAT IS CULTURAL MARXISM- IF YOU’RE NOT A MARXIST-THEN STEER CLEAR!! What is Cultural Marxism? By William S. Lind In his columns on the next conservatism, Paul Weyrich has several times referred to “cultural Marxism.” He asked me, as Free Congress Foundation’s resident historian, to write this column explaining what cultural Marxism is and where it came from. In order to understand what something is, you have to know its history. Cultural Marxism is a branch of western Marxism, different from the Marxism-Leninism of the old Soviet Union. It is commonly known as “multiculturalism” or, less formally, Political Correctness. From its beginning, the promoters of cultural Marxism have known they could be more effective if they concealed the Marxist nature of their work, hence the use of terms such as “multiculturalism.” Cultural Marxism began not in the 1960s but in 1919, immediately after World War I. Marxist theory had predicted that in the event of a big European war, the working class all over Europe would rise up to overthrow capitalism and create communism. But when war came in 1914, that did not happen. When it finally did happen in Russia in 1917, workers in other European countries did not support it. What had gone wrong? Independently, two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary, came to the same answer: Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist class interest that Communism was impossible in the West until both could be destroyed. In 1919, Lukacs asked, “Who will save us from Western civilization?” That same year, when he became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun government in Hungary, one of Lukacs’s first acts was to introduce sex education into Hungary’s public schools. He knew that if he could destroy the West’s traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying Western culture itself. In 1923, inspired in part by Lukacs, a group of German Marxists established a think tank at Frankfurt University in Germany called the Institute for Social Research. This institute, soon known simply as the Frankfurt School, would become the creator of cultural Marxism. To translate Marxism from economic into cultural terms, the members of the Frankfurt School – - Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Wilhelm Reich, Eric Fromm and Herbert Marcuse, to name the most important – - had to contradict Marx on several points. They argued that culture was not just part of what Marx had called society’s “superstructure,” but an independent and very important variable. They also said that the working class would not lead a Marxist revolution, because it was becoming part of the middle class, the hated bourgeoisie. Who would? In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question: a coalition of blacks, students, feminist women and homosexuals. Fatefully for America, when Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, the Frankfurt School fled – - and reestablished itself in New York City. There, it shifted its focus from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to destroying it in the United States. To do so, it invented “Critical Theory.” What is the theory? To criticize every traditional institution, starting with the family, brutally and unremittingly, in order to bring them down. It wrote a series of “studies in prejudice,” which said that anyone who believes in traditional Western culture is prejudiced, a “racist” or “sexist” of “fascist” – - and is also mentally ill. Most importantly, the Frankfurt School crossed Marx with Freud, taking from psychology the technique of psychological conditioning. Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School’s key people spent the war years in Hollywood). After World War II ended, most members of the Frankfurt School went back to Germany. But Herbert Marcuse stayed in America. He took the highly abstract works of other Frankfurt School members and repackaged them in ways college students could read and understand. In his book “Eros and Civilization,” he argued that by freeing sex from any restraints, we could elevate the pleasure principle over the reality principle and create a society with no work, only play (Marcuse coined the phrase, “Make love, not war”). Marcuse also argued for what he called “liberating tolerance,” which he defined as tolerance for all ideas coming from the Left and intolerance for any ideas coming from the Right. In the 1960s, Marcuse became the chief “guru” of the New Left, and he injected the cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School into the baby boom generation, to the point where it is now America’s state ideology. The next conservatism should unmask multiculturalism and Political Correctness and tell the American people what they really are: cultural Marxism. Its goal remains what Lukacs and Gramsci set in 1919: destroying Western culture and the Christian religion. It has already made vast strides toward that goal. But if the average American found out that Political Correctness is a form of Marxism, different from the Marxism of the Soviet Union but Marxism nonetheless, it would be in trouble. The next conservatism needs to reveal the man behind the curtain – - old Karl Marx himself. William S. Lind is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism of the Free Congress Foundation. http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/2005/051025.aspx (The Free Congress Foundation’s website, www.freecongress.org, includes a short book on the history and nature of cultural Marxism, edited by William S. Lind. It is formatted so you can print it out as a book and share it with your family and friends.) Communism in America Today Cultural Marxism Multiculturalism & Political Correctness What is “Political Correctness?” The following book “Political Correctness:” A Short History of an Ideology, answers that question. Because Free Congress Foundation believes every American Needs to Know the Answer, we are here posting the entire book on our website. Any visitor to the website is welcome to print the book for himself, his family and his friends; there are no limits to the number of copies you make. “Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology” http://www.freecongress.org/centers/cc/index.aspx Introduction http://www.freecongress.org/centers/cc/pcessay.aspx Chapter 1 – “Political Correctness:” A Short History of an Ideology Chapter 2 – The Historical Roots of “Political Correctness” Chapter 3 – Political Correctness in Higher Education http://www.freecongress.org/centers/cc/pcessay1-3.aspx Chapter 4 – Political Correctness: Deconstruction and Literature Chapter 5 – Radical Feminism and Political Correctness “The headquarters of the great conspiracy in the late 1700’s was in Frankfurt, Germany where the House of Rothschild had been established by Mayar (or Mayer) Amschel who adopted the Rothschild name and linked together other international financiers who had literally sold their souls to the devil. After the Bavarian government’s exposure in 1786; the conspirators moved their headquarters to Switzerland then to London. Since World War II (after Jacob Schiff, the Rothschild’s boy in America died); the headquarters of the American branch has been in the Harold Pratt Building in New York City and the Rockefellers, originally proteges of Schiff, have taken over the manipulation of finances in America for the Illuminati. A lot of people believe the British Fabian society founded the Frankfurt school, I’ll list some connections, and the power players. I dont have time to do this much justice today, but very briefly, there was a lot of workings and connections to the rothschilds power structure. Here’s some data which may promt your creation of a full picture. Lets look who created the Fabian Society Israel Zangwill, George Bernard Shaw, and a Jewish writer named Israel Cohen were the ones who created the Fabian Society in England and had worked closely with a Frankfurt Jew named Mordicai who had changed his name to Karl Marx; but remember, at that time both Marxism and Communism were just emerging and nobody paid much attention to either and nobody suspected the propaganda in the writings of those three really brilliant writers. http://www.freedomfiles.org/Illuminati/cfr-article.htm CFR INFO. I have a lot more data on the fabian society of Britain, but lets look at a main power player, to get more of an idea where the heart is: Look into Lord Robert Cecil, was 3 times prime minister, a jew who controlled Lenin and Trostsky during the Bolshevik Revolution. “… Robert Cecil of the Jewish Cecil family that had controlled the British monarchy since a Cecil became the private secretary and lover of Queen Elizabeth I, …” (Conspirators’ Hierarchy, p. 201). AHA! I’m seeing more why some think he’s more powerful than the Rothschild family, but how more powerful can you get if you control half of the world’s finances like the Rothschilds? Either way they are still the same edomite-jewish-family I’ve been saying all along. Even much of the Catholic Bishops are a part of this same Edomite family. this continues on page 201: Robert cecil of the jewish cecil family that controlled the British monarchy, … was private secretary of ….. Leo Amery, Halford Mackinder of MI6 and later head of the London School of Economics, whose pupil Bruce Lockhart would become MI6 controller of Lenin and Trotsky during the Bolshevik Revolution, and even the great man himself, Lord Alfred Milner. (as we know 66 Million white russian christians were massacred by the Bolshevik revolution) This wasn’t a gentile conspiracy against jews, these are facts that jews massacred 66 Million Christians in this event. I found some other sources, Coleman writes in his article King Makers, King Breakers: The Cecils (1985, © Dr John Coleman, W.I.R., 2533 N. Carson St., Suite J-118 Carson City, NV 89706): {p. 25} The records at Hatfield House show that the Unity of Science Conferences was the brain child of Robert Cecil, as confirmed by the Dutch Jew, Mandell Huis alias Colonel House, who was the controller of Woodrow Wilson and Wilson’s personal representative at the Paris peace Conference; and the special representative of the United States Government at the Inter-Allied Conference of Premiers and Foreign Ministers in 1917; U. S. representative at the Armistice in 1918 and a member of the Commission on Mandates in 1919. Mandell Huis, like the Cecils, professed to be a Christian, but was a Jew by birth and conviction. He was a firm friend of the Cecil clan, and it was Huis who forced Wilson to agree to the July, 1915 {should be 2 November 1917} arrangement made by Arthur Balfour which gave Palestine to the zionists and brouqht America into the first world war. Americans should be taught these things in schools and universities, but so great is the power of the Black Nobility, the RIIA, the CFR and the Eastern Liberal Establishment gang of traitors, that the majority from the book “Road to Slavery” by Coleman Coleman says that the Cecils encouraged General Karl Haushofer to favour Hitler and help him write Mein Kampf. This doesn’t make sense to me, because Haushofer advocated German-Russian co-operation to counter Mackinder’s Atlanticist ideas, whereas Hitler was a Slavophobe. Then, Coleman says, the Cecils dumped Hitler when he turned against the Jews. The Cecils pressed Edward XVIII to give up his support for Hiler, and created the Simpson Affair as a constitutional crisis to force him out when he refused (pp. 12-13). The Fabians Fabians from: http://christiansbiblestudy.org/williemartin/ILLU-3.htm It was at this juncture that the Fabian Society and Lenin’s Bolshevik Jews made their entrance on the world scene and began to make real headway in achieving the goals outlined by Weishaupt, Roosevelt, Marx and Pike. The only real difference between these two groups were the methods they employed in working towards the same overall goal ‑ the creation of a classless, socialistic one‑world society as envisioned by Marx (A Manifesto, Fabian Tract No. 2, 1884). Since that time, the Bolsheviks {Communist ‑ Jews} have been working to bring it about by violent, revolutionary means. Of the Fabians, The Encyclopedia Britannica (1973 edition, article on Fabian Socialism, tells us; “…the name is derived from that of the Roman General…Fabius, the Delayer, because of his deliberate, long‑range strategy.” [304] As a result, from the very outset, the Fabians worked for a “New World Order”through indoctrination of young scholars in the belief that eventually these intellectual revolutionaries could gain power and influence in the various opinion making and power wielding agencies of the world and so achieve their aims. Their tactics became known as the “doctrine of the inevitability of gradualism.” It must be noted that these were just two of the many “front” organizations through which the International Conspiracy was working. The Real Power has always been held by the International Jewish Bankers! Professor Quigley tells us that during the last part of the nineteenth century, the International Bankers and their American counterparts moved into “commercial banking and insurance on one side and into railroading and heavy industry on the other” and “were able to mobilize enormous wealth and wield enormous economic, political and social power. Popularly known as ‘Society’ of the ‘400,’ they lived a life of dazzling splendor. Sailing the ocean in great private yachts or traveling on land by private train, they moved in a ceremonious round between their spectacular estates and town houses in Palm Beach, Long Island, the Berkshires, Newport, and Bar Harbor, assembling from their fortress‑like New York residences to attend the Metropolitan Opera under the critical eye of Mrs. Astor; or gathering for business meetings at the highest strategic level in the awesome presence of J.P. Morgan himself.” “The structure of financial controls created by the tycoons of ‘Big Banking’ and ‘Big Business’…was of extraordinary complexity, one business being built upon another, both being allied with semi‑ independent associates, the whole rearing upward into two pinnacles of economic and political power, of which one, centered in New York, was headed by J.P. Morgan and Co., and the other, in Ohio, was headed by the Rockefeller family. When these two co‑operated, as they generally did, they could influence the economic life of the country to a large degree and could almost control its political life, at least at the Federal level.’ They caused the ‘panic of 1907′ and the collapse of two railroads, one in 1914 and the other in 1925.” [305] MORE: In 1881, Frank Podmore, who had joined the early Sidgwick group, met Edward Pease at one of the Spiritualist séances that were the vogue in London, at which time they became close friends. The next year he invited Pease to attend a meeting of this group in which the S.P.R. was formed. Norman and Jeanne MacKenzie record this meeting in their history of The Fabians: “In this same period a group of young dons from Trinity College, Cambridge, were also turning to psychic research as a substitute for their lost Evangelical faith. In February 1882, Podmore took Pease to a meeting at which this group founded the Society for Psychical Research . . . Among those who founded the SPR were Henry Sidgwick, Arthur Balfour — later a conservative Prime Minister — and his brother, Gerald.” Norman and Jeanne MacKenzie, The Fabians, Simon & Schuster, 1977, p. 18. Edward Pease spent one year in the S.P.R. as secretary of its haunted-houses committee, but then turned to politics with the conviction that a social revolution was necessary. For a time he worked with an associate of Karl Marx, Henry Hyndman who founded the radical Social Democratic Federation. However, Pease was of the opinion that social revolution must begin with educating the intellectual and wealthy classes rather than fomenting agitation among the working class. He organized a Progressive Association which was joined by Podmore and other young fallen away Evangelicals. The Association split into the Fellowship of the New Life, a commune with utopian illusions, and a research/debating group which Podmore named the Fabian Society, after the Roman general who defeated Hannibal. Fabius Cunctator’s strategy which was to guide the Fabians was summarized in Podmore’s words: “For the right moment you must wait…when the time comes you must strike hard.” The Fabians soon attracted intellectuals from various other dissident organizations. Of these, Sidney Webb, Bernard Shaw and Annie Besant were members of the Dialectical Society influenced by the liberal millenarian aspirations of John Stuart Mill. As of 1886, the Fabian executive committee was comprised of Pease, Podmore, Besant, Shaw and Webb. However, in 1889, Annie Besant was converted to the cult of Theosophy by Madame Blavatsky, whom she succeeded in 1891 as president of the Theosophical Society. Upon this revolutionary base, Sidney Webb, his wife Beatrice and playwright George Bernard Shaw built an organization which educated the intellectuals, bohemians and disillusioned clergy of England in the art of “permeating” and using the machinery of government for their own socialist ends. The MacKenzie’s observed, “There was, indeed, no clear dividing line between spiritual discontent and political radicalism in the netherworld of dissent.” Bernard Shaw and Sidney Webb argued that “socialism could be proposed without forfeiture of moral credit by a bishop as well as a desperado.” 92. The formation of the Christian Socialists and Christian Social Union, of which B.F. Westcott was the first president, created the vehicle by which socialist doctrine would permeate the Anglican Church. “…the first Fabians…had almost all been lapsed Anglicans from Evangelical homes. There was a Christian fringe to the London socialism of the eighties, but this too was Anglican. The Christian Socialists came together in Stewart Headlam’s Guild of St. Matthew and the Land Reform Union; and the more respectable Christian Social Union, formed in 1889 — seeking in Fabian style to permeate the Anglican Church — soon attracted more than two thousand clerical members. Dissenting clergymen too began to find a place in the Fabian Society and the London Progressives, while Unitarian churches and centres like Stanton Coit’s Ethical Church provided a meeting place for believers and idealist agnostics . . . Socialism was for all of them, the new Evangelism.” Mackenzie, pp. 183-84. In 1894, the Fabian Society designated a large bequest to found the London School of Economics and Political Science. Philosopher Bertrand Russell served on the Administration Committee while Arthur Balfour contributed £2000 and also collaborated with Sidney Webb to introduce legislation in Parliament which would give the school university status. H.G. Wells, who had recently joined the Fabians, was “branching out into speculations about a new social order which naturally interested the Webbs.” p. 283 https://anu.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=310&PN=2 THE GREATEST THREAT TO OUR FREEDOMS- ISN’T FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS- IT’S FROM OUR OWN….http://centurean2.wordpress.com/
WARNING: The EUSSR And Political Correctness- Black link Funded By The EU Allowed Diseases into Britain…
June 28, 2009 · 7 Comments
WARNING: The European Union and Political Correctness
JOHN MIDGLEY
Contentsa
Introduction
The Problem
The European Contribution – The Next Stage
Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected.
Freedom of assembly and of association. Political parties at Union level contribute to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union.
Any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.
The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.
Equality between men and women
This is interfering, but honorable, it includes Euro-speak for the ECJ to push for positive discrimination
Workers’ rights to information and consultation within the undertaking
This will lead to time consuming negotiations and undermine the ability of managers to run their organisations as they see best
Right of collective bargaining and action
This enshrines the right to strike. And will reverse our industrial relations legislation to mid-1980s levels
Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal
This may allow the ECJ to project the European concept of the ‘job for life’ into Britain. Sounds good, but undermining an organisations ability to higher and fire will in the long term restrict growth and push up unemployment to Continental levels
Fair and just working conditions and Social security and assistance
This will allow the EU to further limit working hours, extend holidays and provide more maternity and illness leave. Sounds good, if you do not work for one of those small businesses or charities that goes underThe Solution
Address: Trevose House Orsett Street Kennington London SE11 5PN
October 25, 2005 Yes, the School was Frankfurt Germany, for a reason! Later was moved to NY.
{p. 26} of Americans will probably never hear the name of the Cecil family, as one of the names which shaped the destiny of our once free great republican America. Before leaving tlle subject of “Colonel House” (Huis is the Dutch word for house), let me say that in spite of the many important tasks he was given to carry out, “Colonel House” was never a member of the United States government, nor was he elected to hold any of these important offices by the sovereign people of the United States. Therefore I say to you; “Of what use is our present system? We call ourselves a republic and a democracy, yet, no matter who we elect to the White House, the secret government of America continues to enact its policies, without the slightest regard for our wishes. Of what use then, is our electoral system?” … {end}
Another overstatement is that Lord Robert Cecil, when Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had Bruce Lockhart installed as British agent in Russia, and used him to “run” the Bolshevik Revolution (p. 6), but later turned against Trotsky, and conspired with Stalin to have him murdered (pp. 7-9).
Monday, 29 June 2009
Posts
