G. Edward Griffin - The Future is Calling - Secret Organizations And Hidden Agendas

VIP免费

2024-11-19 3 0 56.75KB 11 页 5.9玖币

侵权投诉

Secret Organizations and Hidden Agendas

The Future Is Calling (Part Two)

Revised 2004 November 10

JOHN RUSKIN PROMOTES COLLECTIVISM AT OXFORD

Now let’s put theory behind us and get back into some real history. From the minutes

of the Carnegie Endowment, we recall the curious words: “We must control education in

America.” Who is this “we?” Who are the people who are planning to do that? To answer

that question we must set the co-ordinates on our machine once again, and we are now

moving further back in time to the year 1870. We find ourselves suddenly in England in an

elegant classroom of Oxford University, and we are listing to a lecture by a brilliant

intellectual, John Ruskin.

Ruskin was a Professor of Fine Arts at Oxford. He was a genius. At first I was

prepared not to like him, because he was a total collectivist. But, when I got his books and

started to read the notes from his lectures, I had to acknowledge his talent. First of all he was

an accomplished artist. He was an architect. He was a philosopher. About the only flaw that

I could see was that he believed in collectivism. He preached it eloquently, and his students,

coming from the wealthy class – the elite and the privileged from the finest areas of London

– were very receptive to his message. He taught that those who had inherited the rich culture

and traditions of the British Empire had an obligation to rule the world and make sure that

all the less fortunate and stupid people had proper direction. That basically was his message,

but it was delivered in a very convincing and appealing manner.

Ruskin was not the originator of collectivism. He was merely riding the crest of an

ideological tidal wave that was sweeping through the whole Western World at that time. It

was appealing to the sons and daughters of the wealthy who were growing up with guilt

complexes because they enjoyed so much luxury and privilege in stark contrast to the

world’s poor and starving masses.

In this milieu there were two powerful ideological movements coming to birth. One

of them was Marxism, which offered the promise of defending and elevating these

downtrodden masses. Wealthy young people felt in their hearts that this promise was worthy

and noble. They wanted to do something to help these people, but they didn't want to give

up their own privileges. I will say this about John Ruskin, he actually did give of his own

wealth to help the poor, but he was one of the rare exceptions. Most collectivists are hesitant

about giving their own money. They prefer to have government be the solver of problems

and to use tax revenues – other people’s money. Collectivists recognize that someone has to

run this governmental machine, and it might as well be them, especially since they are so

well educated and wise. In this way, they can retain both their privilege and their wealth.

They can now be in control of society without guilt. They can talk about how they are going

to lift up the downtrodden masses using the collectivist model. It was for these reasons that

many of the wealthy idealists became Marxists and sought positions of influence in

government.

THE FABIAN SOCIETY

But there was another movement coming to birth at about this same time that

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,

the Roman general who, in the second century B.C., kept Hannibal at bay by wearing down

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 Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

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

embedded into society without arousing alarm or serious opposition. It was called The Open

Conspiracy, and the plan was spelled out in minute detail. His fervor was intense. He said

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

discontentment. That’s why Marx called religion the opiate of the masses.2 It gets in the way

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.

2 There is disagreement over the correct translation from the German text. One translation is opium of the people. It’s a

small matter, but we prefer opiate of the masses because we believe it is a more accurate translation and is more

consistent with the fiery vocabulary of Marx.

The blueprint in The Open Conspiracy has been followed in all the British

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.

LOVE-HATE BETWEEN FABIANS AND LENINISTS

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 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

book, The Story of Fabian Socialism, she describes the common bond that binds

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

by Syndicalism1 and then by the Russian Revolution in its early days had died down,

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.

Leninists, on the other hand, tend to be wolves in wolf’s clothing, and their style is more

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 dominant

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 KEY THAT UNLOCKS THE DOOR THAT HIDES THE SECRETS

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.

文档加载中……请稍候！
如果长时间未打开，您也可以点击刷新试试。

下载文档到电脑，查找使用更方便

5.9 玖币 0人已下载

立即下载 VIP免费下载

摘要：

展开>> 收起<<

G. Edward Griffin - The Future is Calling - Secret Organizations And Hidden Agendas.pdf

共11页,预览4页

还剩页未读，继续阅读

声明：本站为文档C2C交易模式，即用户上传的文档直接被用户下载，本站只是中间服务平台，本站所有文档下载所得的收益归上传人(含作者)所有。玖贝云文库仅提供信息存储空间，仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理，对上载内容本身不做任何修改或编辑。若文档所含内容侵犯了您的版权或隐私，请立即通知玖贝云文库，我们立即给予删除！

G. Edward Griffin - The Future is Calling - Secret Organizations And Hidden Agendas

相关推荐

开通VIP享超值会员特权

作者详情

相关内容

热门标签

举报选择: