The Future Is Calling (Part Two)
Secret Societies and Hidden Agendas
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
When the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia, landowners and shopkeepers were slaughtered by the tens of thousands.
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.
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.
Syndicalism is a variant of collectivism in which labor unions play
a dominant role in government and industry.
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.
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 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:
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:
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 hammers – to shatter it to bits! That’s what they were saying at the Carnegie Endowment Fund. That’s what they were saying at the Ford Foundation.
And what is their heart’s desire? Ladies and Gentlemen, it is collectivism.
His name is Cecil Rhodes. It will be revealed in later years that this young man was so impressed by Ruskin’s message that he often referred to those notes over the next thirty years of his life. Rhodes became a dedicated collectivist and wanted to fulfill the dream and the promise of John Ruskin.
His life mission was to bring the British Empire into dominance over the entire world, to re-unite with America, and to create world government based on the model of collectivism.
His biographer, Sarah Millin, summed it up when she wrote:
Most people are aware that Rhodes made one of the world’s greatest fortunes in South African diamonds and gold. What is not widely known is that he spent most of that fortune to promote the theories of John Ruskin.
What Quigley was teaching was similar to what John Ruskin had taught and, like Rhodes before him, Clinton took those lectures very seriously. Incidentally, it should not go unnoticed that Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar.
One of the leaders and organizers of this secret society was W.T. Stead who wrote a book about the wills of Cecil Rhodes. In that book, Stead said:
The structure of the secret society was formed along classical, conspiratorial lines.
Most of the better-known conspiracies of history have been structured as rings within rings. Generally there’s a leader or a small group of two or three people at the center.
They form a ring of supporters around them of perhaps ten or twelve, and those people think they are the total organization. They are not aware that two or three of their group are in control.
And then the twelve create a larger ring around them of perhaps a hundred people who all think they are the total organization, not realizing there are twelve who are really directing it. These rings extend outward until, finally, they reach into the mainstream community where they enlist the services of innocent people who perform various tasks of the secret society without realizing who is creating the agenda or why.
Quigley tells us this:
After the death of Cecil Rhodes, the organization fell under the control of Lord Alfred Milner, who was Governor General and High Commissioner of South Africa, also a very powerful person in British banking and politics.4
He recruited young men from the upper class of society to become part of the Association of Helpers. Unofficially, they were known as “Milner’s Kindergarten.”
They were chosen because of their upper-class origin, their intelligence, and especially because of their dedication to collectivism. They were quickly placed into important positions in government and other power centers to promote the hidden agenda of the secret society.
Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment: from Rhodes to
Cliveden (New York: Books in Focus, 1981), p. ix. The existence of
this secret society is also confirmed by Rhodes’ biographer, Sarah
Millin, op. cit, pp. 32, 171, 173, 216.
Eventually, this Association of Helpers became the inner rings of larger groups, which expanded throughout the British Empire and into the United States.
This is what Quigley says:
1 Quigley, Tragedy, pp. 132, 951-52.
At last we come to that obscure organization that plays such a decisive roll in contemporary American political life, The Council on Foreign Relations.
Now we understand that it was spawned from the secret society created by Cecil Rhodes – which still exists today, that originally it was a front for J.P. Morgan and Company, and that its primary purpose is to promote world government based on the model of collectivism.
going to take more time than I really want to spare in order to
present these names to you but, otherwise, you may think this
organization and its members are not important.
Let’s start with the Presidents of the United States. Members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) include:
John F. Kennedy claimed he was a member, but his name does not appear on former membership lists.
So there is confusion on that one, but he said he was a member. I might add that Kennedy was a graduate of the London School of Economics, which was founded by Sydney and Beatrice Webb to promote the ruling-class and collectivist concepts of the Fabians.
Secretaries of State who were CFR members include:
Secretaries of Defense who were members of the CFR include:
It is interesting that Rumsfield has asked that his name be removed from the current list of CFR members. However, you will find his name on previous lists.
In the Media there are past or present members of the CFR holding key management or control positions – not just working down the line – but in top management and control positions of:
CFR media personalities include:
1 Peter Jennings and Bill Moyer, although not members of the CFR, are members of the Bilderberg Group, which has the same ideological orientation as the CFR but functions at the international level as a kind of steering committee to coordinate the activities of similar groups in other countries.
In the universities, the number of past or present CFR members who are professors, department chairman, presidents, or members of the board of directors is 563. In financial institutions, such as banks, the Federal Reserve System, the stock exchanges, and brokerage houses the total number of CFR members in controlling positions is 284.
Some of the better known corporations controlled by past or present members of the CFR include:
And finally, the labor unions that are dominated by past or present members of the CFR include:
Please understand that this is just a sampling of the list.
The total membership is about four thousand people. There are many churches in your community that have that many members or more. What would you think if it were discovered that members of just one church in your community held controlling positions in 80% of the power centers of America? Wouldn’t you be curious? First of all you would have to find out about it, which would not be easy if those same people controlled the avenues of information that you rely on to learn of such things.
For the most part, they are merely opportunists who view this organization as a high level employment agency.
They know that, if they are invited to join, their names will appear on a prestigious list, and collectivists seeking to consolidate global control will draw upon that list for important jobs. However, even though they may not be conscious agents of a secret society, they have all been carefully screened for suitability. Only collectivists are invited, and so they have the necessary mindset to be good functionaries within the New World Order.
If you have ever wondered why the two American parties appear so different at election time but not so different afterward, listen carefully to Quigley’s approving overview of American politics:
The power centers of the United States – including both major political parties – are controlled by members of the Council on Foreign Relations. This, in turn, is controlled by a submerged Round Table Group, which is associated with other Round Tables in other countries. These are extensions of a secret society founded by Cecil Rhodes and still in operation today.
I call it the Fabian Network, not because these people are members of the Fabian Society, for most of them are not. It is because they share the Fabian ideology of global collectivism and the Fabian strategy of patient gradualism. Is this reality? If I were in your position, being exposed to all of this for the first time, I probably would think, “Oh come on! This can’t be true! If it were, I would have read about it in the newspaper.”
Well, before you dismiss it as just another conspiracy theory, I’d like to refer you one more time to Professor Quigley. He said this:
Quigley, Tragedy, pp. 1247–1248.
Yes! Ladies and Gentlemen, this is reality!