The Fabian Society

Written by @LepaDinis

In 1884, the Fabian Society was formed by a group of elitists, for the purpose of ushering in a one world oligarchic collectivist state through a process known as Gradualism – a policy of gradual reform from within a system rather than sudden change or violent revolution. 

This would become the basis for what is today called Fabian Socialism.

The global financial elite operate very much in the shadows through a network of secretive and so-called ‘think-tanks’ such as the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission, all with one common purpose, global governance by the elite. In the UK, one of the more well-known groups is the Fabian Society.

The attempts to ‘power grab’ started as far back as 1609 when the House of Commons first tried their luck. They wrote to the House of Lords claiming to be the Knights, Burgess’s and Barons of the High Court of Parliament. The House of Lords replied saying they would never accept the Commons as Barons and that without them (the Lords) they were not a true court. Next in 1667 the House of Commons told the House of Lords they could not amend a money bill. A ten-year argument between both Houses ensued until in 1677 the House of Lords agreed not to amend any money bills. This was the start of the problems we have today. In 1714 Queen Anne died and King George I came to the Crown. He spoke no English and so unlike all previous Kings and Queens, he did not attend parliament or cabinet meetings. The government of the day in the Commons were left to do as they liked. King George II spent his entire reign complaining that his ministers were Kings in his Kingdom and that he was discouraged from attending parliament or cabinet meetings. We know that King George III fought back and in part reversed that trend. On the 8th March 1784, a vote was taken in Parliament and the King won the vote.

When King George V came to the throne, following Edward VII’s death, he was told by a government minister that he kept all his prerogatives but could not use any of them unless he had the backing of a government minister! When the King accepted this, it was the final nail in the coffin of England. At the same time, Asquith put through the 1911 Parliament Act which purported to remove from the House of Lords their ability to reject a bill. So, we now have a situation where Asquith (a Fabian prime minister) had usurped the Royal Prerogative, a clear act of high treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act and a clear act of the subversion of the constitutional arrangements of Parliament.

The 1911 Parliament Act was a clear case of High Treason against the Constitutional arrangements of Parliament at English Common Law.

Similarly, the 1999 House of Lords Act which removed the hereditary Peers from their rightful place in Parliament is also High Treason. The Peers should have a constitutional right of personal audience with the Sovereign. This is intended to avoid the problem of “evil counsellors” keeping the Sovereign in ignorance of the people’s grievances. If this were maintained, we may not be where we are today.

Therefore, it can be seen that according to our Constitutional Law, every Parliament since 1911 has been an unlawful assembly & all laws passed since then are void under English Common Law.  Sovereignty theft by stealth. The fact they are still part of our British Common law is undeniable, Sir Edward Coke said, “The Royal Prerogative is part of the Personality of the Monarch and could not be taken from them even by an Act if Parliament” which the Law Lords Halbury and Jowitt agree. (Halbury’s Laws, The Birth Right of the People of England – these are legal reference books of great prestige).

Since the Assent is given under the regal ‘Prerogative Power,’ it is invalid if it is given to an unconstitutional act. Therefore, one can conclude that ALL of the bills that have been made law since 1911, which includes 1972 entry into Europe, and all that follows, together with the Civil Contingencies Bill, the Constitutional Reform Act, Equality Act and the Immigration Act ARE VOID.

It is clear that our entry into the European Union is INVALID, ILLEGAL and against our Constitution. The security clause – Article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215 invocation following constitutional protocols on 23rd March 2001 – making it the ONLY LAW in affect-means We have to inform others of their Constitutional Duties under the Law. The Heath administration 1970-72 was clearly aware they were committing a serious crime as they used national security legislation to hide the documents from the people for 30 years FCO 30/1048 is a file gleaned in 2002 from the public records office after it was hidden under the criminal 30-year rule.:

This proves that Edward Heath and his co-conspirators committed Sedition and High treason at common law. They were in breach of the act of supremacy 1559 which states control of our country must not be passed into foreign hands unless beaten in outright war. They knew that signing us up to the EU would erode our sovereignty. They are all in their positions illegitimately and fraudulently due to the ignorance of the masses of the invocation of Article 61 – making it the ONLY law in affect.

‘On this day in 2001, Article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215- the people’s security clause for treason was invoked following constitutional protocols.

All Government’s dissolved queen deposed for TREASON.

Article 61 is the ONLY LAW in affect.

The Parliament Act 1911.

Edward VII had refused to pass the Parliament Act in 1910 & as such Asquith had to go to the country for a vote, which he lost. A plan was devised to get this bill back, so he invited 40 Fabian Socialists and 82 Sien Fien to join his party in order to destroy the House of Lords which had been holding on to the fiscal prerogative and in so doing he set out to destroy the British Constitution.

The Parliament Act is actually illegal under the Constitution and the 1848 Treason and Felony Act, which states that neither House, Lords nor the Commons has power above the other. The 1911 Act altered the ‘fiscal power,’ which according to our Constitution cares for all taxpayers, as stated under the Petition of Right (part of the Constitution – No taxation without representation). This puts taxation illegally into the hands of the majority political party in the Commons, and without any amendment allowed from the House of Lords.

At the time of the French Revolution and the American Independence, political parties weren’t fixed as in the Masonic Constitution of America, which is based on the principal of divide and rule. Whereas in Britain, the British Constitution was made by the People for the People and the monarch holds them together according to our Constitutional laws. In relation to this fact, Elisabeth (info here) put forward to the judge the question of Brussels acting illegally under European Laws which invalidated the court itself. e.g. the 1988 Mercantile Shipping Act in relation to Spaniards fishing within the British 12 mile limit.

Brussels overruled it and fined the British £300,000. In doing this Brussels claimed rights over our Sovereign and Parliament who had passed the Act. She pointed out to the court under this ruling it had no validity. At which point the judge shut her up and said, “I am under contract to make a liability order against you since the order allowed no exception.”, is entirely against our constitutional laws. Elisabeth then asked for leave to appeal. The judge replied, “You can do what you like.”

Elisabeth explained to the judge that Queens Council has given her his opinion, “Technically under the Rules of Erskine May, it is stated the Automatic Assent, if not complied with, would invalidate ALL laws since 1911”

The crown refers to the British Monarch and its duties under the law…the crown corporation is part of the treasonous deception and is a corporate entity so yes two crowns….

Anything other than a de jure system of governance is illegal and especially so since article 61 was invoked. Yes they use Admiralty rules that govern the high seas but which does not stand under the common law as it should, All governments in Britain have been at least aiding and abetting treason since the 1911 Parliament Act was treasonously granted royal assent by King George V.

No because man made law is fine as long as it complies with the constitutional constraints, if it does then it is of the law of God anyway you see? Some of the acts etc that have been passed into law since 1911 may well be within constitutional boundaries but they will still have been created under an illegal administration making them null and void.

You see folks, everything is topsy turvy and this is because Britain & the Commonwealth has been under a treasonous administration for 105 years. The 1911 Parliament Act was an Act of Treason by the Herbert Henry Asquith (Liberal 1908 to 1916) administration because it breached the proper protocols and protections of the constitution, King George V granted assent to said Act, not long after the Parliament Act was passed into law everything started to change…. in 1914 the Banksters contrived the first world war to further the corporate takeover of the globe. This has been an ongoing trend as the drip-by-drip legislation that has been granted royal assent has completely changed the system of law and of service that the sovereign peoples of this land should be enjoying.

Asquith, asked Edward VII to create sufficient new Liberal peers to pass the Bill in 1910 if the Lords rejected it. The King said that this could only happen if Asquith went back to the polls to obtain an explicit mandate for the constitutional shift. The Lords, in fact, voted this 1910 Parliament Bill down as it wasn’t very fair on the people, so Asquith called a second general election in December 1910, and again formed a minority government.

Edward VII had died in May 1910 in his sleep at the age of only 68 and his second son, King George V, who was nowhere near as knowledgeable on constitutional law as his recently deceased father, agreed that, if necessary, he would create over 500 new Liberal peers to neutralise the Conservative majority in the Lords in order to push the Act through. The Conservative Lords then backed down, and on 10 August 1911, the House of Lords had illegitimately pushed the Bill through because they had passed this Bill under duress.

 Since the 1911 Parliament Act, all subsequent legislation passed by Parliament hasn’t had the proper authorisation to be considered legitimate Statutes.

“There is no Act of Parliament” says Coke, “but must have the consent of the Lords, the Commons, and the Royal Assent from the King, and it appeareth by records and our books, whatever passed in parliament by this threefold consent, hath the force of an Act of Parliament.”

Parliament consists of three parts in all: the Commons, the Lords, and the Sovereign. None of these parts can make or repeal law Individually. No part can be changed or moved and they must remain balanced. It works by the Commons originating legislation, which is then passed to the Lords for scrutiny. It is then the function of the Lords to refuse the legislation if they believe it to be oppressive, or in any other way not good legislation (e.g., unconstitutional). If the Lords approve the legislation, it then goes before the Sovereign who may refuse the Royal Assent if they believe the legislation is not in the best interests of his or her subjects.

What the 1911 Parliament Act eventually and unconstitutionally achieved was the usurpation and theft of the Royal Prerogative. The lords should still sit and stop unconstitutional legislation being passed. The House of Commons purported to assert supremacy over the Lords, which was and still is highly illegal. The disestablishment of what become the United Kingdom parliament started after the restoration under King Charles II. Charles had just been handed his father’s throne and was somewhat indebted to the House of Commons so he did not argue with them when the Commons told the Lords they could not originate a bill or amend a money bill. The Upper House resisted this for some time but eventually gave way; there is nothing in the Constitution which allows this assault on the powers of the House of Lords. As a direct result of this, the House of Lords accepted that they would not amend a money bill. Then after the death of Queen Anne in 1714, we inherited a King (George I) who, being born in Osnabrück, Germany, did not speak English. So, unlike every King or Queen who went before, he did not attend Parliament or Cabinet Meetings, allowing politicians to go on a destructive free run. George I signed everything put before him, not knowing what he was signing and George II was told he should not attend Parliament and Cabinet Meetings by government. This was both unconstitutional and was the acts of treason and sedition by restraining the King from carrying out his constitutional role to supervise legislation, and he spent his life complaining that his ministers were kings in his kingdom. 6 1 George III fought a twenty-year battle with the House of Commons as to where sovereignty lay, with him as the Anointed King, or with the House of Commons. After a speech by Pitt the elder in which he said;

“Instead of the arbitrary power of a Stuart King we must submit to the arbitrary power of the House of the Commons. If this be true, what benefits do we derive from the exchange? Tyranny my Lords is detestable in every shape, but none so formidable as where it is exercised by a number of tyrants, My Lords, this is not the fact, this is not the constitution, we have a law of parliament. We have a statute book and the Bill of Rights.”

The King won the vote in the Commons. It was decided that sovereignty lay with the King. This is the legal, constitutional position today. Indeed, that has always been the case.

The Commons may indeed claim and purport to hold superiority over both the Lords, the Monarch and the People of the United Kingdom today but this does not mean that there are no constitutional implications involved.

The current monarch, Elizabeth II, was taught the same as her predecessors for around 20 years of her life by a member of the Fabian society, Sir (Clarence) Henry Kennett Marten. The old myth was perpetuated. She too was taught since 1938 that she couldn’t exercise her prerogative powers without the backing of her ministers. Of course, if such disinformation were to be true, there would be evidence to substantiate it. However, it is completely evidential that this is not the case when it comes to the (evidential) constitutional laws of Britain.

So, parliament have been on a silent and subversive power-grab since at least the mid 1600’s and they have achieved this by mis-educating the peoples incumbent heads of state complete anti- constitutional fabrications about how the law works. And in the early 1900’s, as I have already indicated, they achieved the first goal of making sure that the Lords couldn’t ever get in their way again. Parliament were free after that point to push through any legislation they wanted because both the Lord’s and the Monarch (George V at the time) believed they couldn’t stop them from doing so. Of course, Britain could and should have a great system of justice, however parliament have allowed this to go on for generations and the people have grown more and more unaware of its implications and danger to the laws and customs of the country.

We have a tripartite government in this country. Parliament, the Judiciary and the Monarchy are intended to provide protections and limits on each other. One of those limiting powers is Royal Assent.

We are told by Parliament that the last time a bill was rejected by the sovereign was in 1707 when Queen Anne rejected the Scottish Militia Act. This is far from the truth. Queen Victoria refused a bill on homosexuality because it contained references to lesbians, on the grounds she did not believe women could engage in such activity. The bill had to be rewritten with all reference to lesbianism removed before it received the Assent. King Edward VII refused what became the 1911 Parliament Act because it was unconstitutional and removed a protection from his subjects.

In Britain, we have these two systems of law running simultaneously. Civil law is obviously a requirement in a finance based modern society. Parliamentary Acts and Statutes are needed to introduce and adapt our legal system to modernisation and change. As a simple example, we moved on from horses and carts and therefore need the Road Traffic Act to legislate for the use of modern motor propelled vehicles on the road, regulating their safety and liability issues, et cetera.

However, with careful legal and historical analysis it can be observed that there has been a very slow introduction of a great number of various Statutes and Acts that have been used to overlay Common Laws. This overlaying of civil legislation is not changing Constitutional Law, which remains immutable, but it is having the deliberate effect of bureaucratically burying it in false obsolescence. This tactic is being used to subtly steer the direction of our future governance towards the dominance of power being with the state rather than the people, as per our Constitutional Law.

This subversive and seditious legal procedure was recognised as early as 1929 by Lord Hewart of Bury, Lord Chief Justice of England. He realised that the house of commons was using Statutes to install legal instruments of authoritarianism in an attempt to dismantle our Constitution. Lord Hewart wrote a book specifically about this called ‘The New Despotism’, in which he described this “new despotism” as “to subordinate Parliament, to evade the Courts, and to render the will, or the caprice, of the Executive unfettered and supreme”.

The book created a constitutional and political storm. It was rumoured that Whitehall considered an attempt to boycott it. Lord Hewart said in a speech, “I will be no party to the doctrine, that a Lord Chief Justice, summoned to the House of Lords, as he is, not merely to vote, but also to advise, is condemned to a lifelong and compulsory silence on the affairs of State.”

The unconstitutional loss of a significant amount of national legislative control to the EU only served to speed up this process by giving the appearance of improved rights on the surface, while underneath aiming to strip away our most precious constitutional rights without us noticing, which, even though it is happening in our faces, to many it is invisible. Sure, the EU appears to offer attractive benefits to many, including improved worker’s rights et cetera, but these are sugar- coated cyanide pills designed to lure us into big- government, keeping us tip-toeing like fools towards an increasingly Orwellian state. There should be no reasonable and democratic rights or policies that we cannot self-serve with our own Government if it’s working as it was constitutionally intended.

The word Fabian derives from the Roman general Fabius, who used carefully planned strategies to slowly wear down his enemy over an extended period of time. This is similar to the way Fabian Socialism works to implement its agenda of a one world state. It’s no coincidence that the international symbol for Fabianism is the slow- moving turtle, this replaced their older shield which gives their game away displaying a wolf in sheep’s clothing. That the Fabians consciously sought the company, collaboration and support of the wealthy and powerful is evident from Fabian writings such as Beatrice Webb’s Our Partnership, which abound in references to “catching millionaires,” “wire-pulling,” “moving all the forces we have control over,” while at the same time taking care to “appear disinterested” and claiming to be “humble folk whom nobody suspects of power” (Webb, 1948).

In fact, the Webbs were in regular touch with the likes of Arthur Balfour and Richard Haldane (a member of the Fabian Society) who served as contacts between the Fabians and the powerful and wealthy. As their social circle expanded, the Webbs’ frequent dinners, informal meetings, and “little parties” enabled them to mingle with leading members of the ruling elite like Lord Rosebery, Julius Wernher (of the gold and diamond mining company Wernher, Beit & Co.) and Lord Rothschild, and talk them into backing their subversive projects.

It is essential to understand, however, that this was far from being a one-way affair. The leading elements of liberal capitalism – the big businessmen, industrialists and bankers – who had amassed great wealth in the wake of the industrial revolution, were no selfless philanthropists. They aimed to strengthen their own position of power and influence by two means: by monopolising finance, economy and politics; and by controlling the growing urban working class.

The Fabian Society has easily traceable links with the international banking families. It also appears to be very opposed to the British monarchy and wishes to see it removed. Which again is in violation of Constitutional Law. A republican state, if desired, should be the open democratic choice of the people in accordance with Law.

Former British Prime Ministers, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, are linked with the Fabians, and it’s probably no coincident that Margaret Thatcher, responsible for some of the greatest politically motivated national asset stripping of the last century, when asked at a speaking commitment in 2002 what she regarded as her greatest career achievement, replied “Tony Blair and New Labour”!

The window carries the logo: “Remould it [the World] nearer to the heart’s desire,” the last line from a quatrain by the medieval Iranian poet Omar Khayyam which reads:

“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 heart’s desire!”

In the UK, Common Purpose is an example of an organisation involved in these operations. Disguised as a charity organisation, it is designed to be the Trojan Horse in British Society with the primary objective of getting the first Common Purpose ‘future leaders’ into place, from where they could open many doors to many more of their own. But alongside infiltration by the political charity Common Purpose comes the wider socio-political agenda of common purpose; an agenda which is being promoted by a host of different organisations and initiatives. These include Diversity Courses, Community Empowerment, Leadership, Visioning, Community Activism, Social Entrepreneurs and Disrupters – in fact there is now a vast web of these ‘vehicles’ which are primarily working to promote the change agenda to destabilise our historic organised society. Throughout Britain, Common Purpose already has over 20,000 leaders and 80,000 trainees culled from influential sections of society such as the NHS, the BBC, the police, the legal profession, many of Britain’s 7000 quangos, local councils the Civil Service, government ministries and Parliament.

Many of the people caught up in the recent sex scandals in Rotherham, whether members of the Council, Social Services or Local Police, have been reported to be either graduates of Common Purpose or involved in some way with this sinister political cult. The vast majority of the individuals involved with Common Purpose will have been duped and are unlikely to be fully aware of the organisation’s real role in the despotic global agenda.

This Fabian style of subversive and secret theft of sovereignty was recognised many years ago in the America administration by Kennedy. In the following world-famous speech, which probably got him shot (in conjunction with his attempts to free the States from the bankers’ grips by shutting down the Federal Reserve), he said: “The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe… no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of ‘clear and present danger,’ then I can only say that the danger has never been clearer and its presence has never been more imminent. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence – on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumour is printed, no secret is revealed.” JFK, April 27, 1961.

Former Congresswoman, and US Presidential candidate, Dr.Cynthia McKinney has been outspoken in her experiences of shadow elements and deeply underhanded practices within the US Government for many years. She whistle-blew on the secret pledge. During her years in Congress, she stated, candidates for both the House and the Senate were pressured to sign pledges of support for Israel, documents in which the candidate promised to vote to provide consistent levels of economic aid to Israel. Refusal to sign the pledge meant no funding for the candidate’s campaign, and the American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC), and the controlled media crush them and they lose office. According to McKinney, the pledge also included a vow to support Jerusalem as the capital of Israel! It doesn’t take a genius to work out which of the elite financial families is most linked with the ‘Greater Israel Project’.

There are no coincidences!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *