When the New Labour government was in its death throes, Gordon Brown reached out to Nick Clegg with the words, “I have studied history, I know the future of this country is a progressive alliance between two progressive parties”. Clegg rejected his overtures and formed a coalition with Cameron’s ‘progressive’ Tories on grounds that Labour were ‘old progressives’, but the coalition were ‘new progressives’. Of course, the general public had no understanding of what was being discussed.
Nevertheless, many politicians place great emphasis on their wish to be seen as progressive – but at no point do they attempt to explain to their constituents what the term means regards policy going forward. And there is no indication of what practical effect the application of ‘progressive politics’ might have on the voters of the country.
It is almost like Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg and the rest of the politicians are speaking in code in order to keep something from us. What is progressive politics? How is success measured? What are we meant to be progressing towards? Where are our politicians taking us and, more importantly, what is the final destination? Unless politicians provide answers to these questions, we should not trust them with our vote.
Even a brief search on the internet reveals that progressive politics has, for quite some time, been part of the politicians’ lexicon of language. So perhaps the only way to unravel the mysteries of progressivism is to examine the type of policies advocated in the past by progressives, and see the direction of travel we have taken thus far.
As can be seen from the dialogue in the opening paragraph, all three major, UK-wide, political parties consider themselves ‘progressive’. If that is the case, then we need to find out what gives them that commonality. In other words, what political ideology do they share, and how do they translate that ideology into policies that affect our daily lives?
Having already spent some time considering this very question, I can tell you that on all of the major political issues that affect our lives, the leadership of all three parties are fully aligned.
For example, the 2016 referendum was a clear rejection of what these people call ‘progress’. For them the British peoples’ desire for freedom is neither a privilege to be defended nor a prize to be sought but an obstacle to be overcome. Therefore progressives do not care for democracy.
Moreover, they all support raising taxes to pay for a bigger welfare system which, in turn, induces more people to vote for governments that will continue to fund, or even increase, their state benefits. Increasing state dependency undermines a person’s self-respect, makes them less inclined to engage in free enterprise, reduces their individual autonomy and makes them more subservient to the wishes of the state. In effect, the state provides the support that family units once did, which helps undermine the traditonal family. These are the foundation stones of socialism.
Constantly ratcheting up state spending locks the state into a spiral of increasing national debt which, in the long term, is bad news for the proletariat who must forever toil to pay the spiralling interest payments to the states international creditors. It is also bad news for democracy.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” Alexander Tytler
As we explain in the section entitled ‘Political Infrastructure’, the more a state is indebted to international financiers, the greater control this unaccountable elite exercise over that state and the less democratic it becomes. The current UK National Debt is 1.8 trillion pounds and rising. That figure does not include hidden debt locked up in state and public authority pension entitlements. Some say the real figure is approaching £5 trillion.
Progressive parties work towards creating a 24/7 real-time surveillance state where every individuals financial transactions, physical movements, internet activity, written and spoken word are fully monitored and rigidly controlled. Governments are increasingly working with global corporations to use the data acquired as a means of exercising social and political coercion.
There already exists in China a social credit system based on analysis of this type of data. Breach state rules, or speak ill of the government, and receive a sanction. In America, people who post comments on social media that displease progressive organisations like Google or Facebook are already finding that car hire is withdrawn or hotel accommodation is barred. Sometimes their bank accounts are closed and owing to the cartel system, no other banking institution will take them on. In the end, they lose their jobs, homes and become non-persons. Many western governments are beginning to harvest biometric data ready to begin implementing this form of social control. Totalitarian societies have always sought total control their citizens.
Progressive political parties agree that ‘pooling’ sovereignty with other states and free movement of people is both necessary and desirable. They argue that open borders and unlimited mass migration has served this country well. The result of implementing these policies over the long term is that the UK will become a region of a global super-state inhabited by mixed-race cosmopolitans with no allegiance to the former state.
And lastly, upon acquiring power, the leaders of the progressive parties become part of the secretive network of globalist organisations that really define our direction of political travel; the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Foundation for European Progressive Studies, the Fabian Society, the Trilateral Commission, Chatham House, Socialist International, etc.
Because some members of these secretive organisations own our censorious media, most people would never have heard about these organisations. But rest assured, in the post-democratic age, these are the meetings that really shape our world.
If you believe this to be all a conspiracy theory, then take a moment to consider that as we draft this very article, the world’s corporate CEOs, media moguls, advertising gurus, investment bankers, hedge funders, offshore accounters and a rag bag of complicit, pocket-lining, politicians are holding a closed meeting at Davos to plot, to scheme and to determine our future in ways that we cannot possibly know or have any influence over. This shabby, self-serving, underhand and deceitful common cause is why progressives have to speak in code
But what is their end game? Why do they feel the need to hold closed meetings and speak in code? What are they keeping from us? With any secretive body, there is always leakage. A mislaid briefing paper, an overheard conversation, a whistleblower or a member’s off-guarded comment.
The Bilderberg Group was the brainchild of Joseph Retinger, a London based Polish socialist and Fabian Society enthusiast. The inaugural meeting, chaired by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands (representing Rothschild family interests) and attended by Retinger, was held in 1954 at the Bilderberg Hotel near Arnhem, Netherlands.
Sitting around the same meeting table as Nelson Dean Jay, Director of international banking conglomerate Morgan Stanley, and David Rockefeller of the Chase National Bank, were two members of the Fabian Society’s Executive Committee, who were also leading members of the British Labour Party and the Socialist International; namely Denis Healey and Hugh Gaitskell.
Photograph of part of the official 1954 Bilderberg Group attendance list showing Socialist Denise Healey and banker Nelson Dean Jay.
Also in attendance was Thomas Williamson, General Secretary of the UK National Union of General and Municipal Workers.
In 1951, the long established Fabian Society created an international network of socialist organisations operating under a co-ordinating body called the Socialist International. Before long, it was to announce:
“The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government. As a first step towards it, they seek to strengthen the United Nations … Membership of the United Nations must be made universal” (‘Declaration of the Socialist International’, Oslo Conference, 2-4 June 1962).
The ambition to establish a one-world government was later parroted by Socialist parties all over the world. For example, Britain’s Labour Party declared:
“Labour remained faithful to its long-term belief in the establishment of east-west co-operation as the basis for a strengthened United Nations developing towards world government … For us world government is the final objective and the United Nations the chosen instrument …” (Labour Party manifesto 1964).
We can now see what committed socialists at the 1954 Bilderberg meeting sought. But what did the Bilderberg attendees representing raw capitalism desire?
David Rockefeller was the chief funder of the now disbanded League of Nations, and its replacement, The United Nations, a supranational body much sought by socialists as a stepping stone to world government. Rockefeller was also Honorary Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and a founder member of the Trilateral Commission – which Denise Healey himself became a member of.
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFA) and Trilateral Commission operate in the same way, with largely the same type of people who share the same overall aims as the Bilderberg Group. However the Bilderberg Group concerns itself with Europe, while the older CFA is Atlanticist and the much later Trilateral Commission also includes Pacific/Asia countries. David Rockefeller was the inspiration for all three bodies:
“Some even believe we are a part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller, Memoirs.)
The billionaires funding Bilderberg, Chatham House, Council on Foreign Relations and other private organisations working to constitute World Government are no selfless philanthropists. Their aim is merely to strengthen their own power and influence by: (1). Monopolising finance and politics and (2) Controlling the working class.
One World Government has remained the central objective of international finance, and it shares that objective with socialist movements around the world, including the powerful Fabian Society – whose aims are covertly promoted by Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, both former Labour Prime Ministers, and favourite for the roll of next Labour leader, Keir Starmer.
On 19th January 2019, in front of a large banner reading, ‘Working for a Progressive Europe’, Keir Starmer gave a speech to The Fabian Society where he promised that Labour would push for a second EU referendum in the hope of overturning the democratically expressed will of the British people. Starmer’s words to the Fabians were, “It’s a commitment to you, our members and our movement”. All Fabian socialist are totally committed to the cause of European integration.
European integration (which requires nations to be destroyed) was one of the principal themes of the Bilderberg Group, and regular attendee George McGhee (former US ambassador to West Germany) acknowledges that, “The 1957 Treaty of Rome, which bought the Common Market into being, was nurtured at Bilderberg meetings”. (Authorised biography of Prince Bernhard by Alden Hatch 1962)
The European single currency was also ‘nurtured’ at Bildeberg meetings. Speaking in 2007, Bilderberg Chairman Etienne Davignon (former EU Commissioner and vice chairman of energy firm Suez-Tractebel) said, “When we were having debates on the euro, people [at Bilderberg events] could explain why it was worth taking risks and the others, for whom the formal policy was not to believe in it, were not obliged not to listen and had to stand up and come up with real arguments.” (Andrew Rettman, EUObserver, 16th March 2007)
Some fifty years later, when the world had become more accepting of their plans, Denise Healey revealed what had been afoot in 1954: “To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn’t go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing.” (Guardian 10th March 2001).
This rare photograph of the 1954 Bilderberg meeting was found with hundreds of other confidential documents in a collection once owned by Bilderberg attendee George McGhee, former US ambassador to West Germany. The entire archive is held at Georgia University Library and available for public inspection at the reading room on the fifth floor of the Joseph Mark Lauinger Memorial. Screenshots of some other Bilderberg material lie at the foot of this page.
The archive contains a letter dated 10th August 1955 from Jack Heinz, President of HJ Heinz, setting out the agenda for the next meeting of the “Bilderberg Gang” at Garmisch on 23-25 September. Topics include: NATO, Atomic Energy and European unification. Funding for the meeting came from inter alia; David Rockefeller $3000, Jack Heinz $3000 and the Ford Foundation $9000.
Reading through the archive, it becomes clear that the underlying purpose of the Bilderberg meetings was to counter the spread of communism by building a united Europe and strengthening the UN in order to lift the “uncommitted people of the world” into a sufficient state of prosperity that would prevent them from turning to communism. These ‘uncommitted people’ were those who were not yet committed to capitalism or communism. They encompassed Africa, the Middle East and the counties of Southern Europe. A further document reads:
“The role of economy in winning the allegiance of the non-committed people for the West and its ideology: Special stress must be laid on competent research by sociologists and social-psychologists as to what measures should be taken to insure that the assistance indeed improves existing social conditions and does not disrupt the social structure”
The archive sheds some much needed light on the reason why Royals, Bankers, Industrialists, Socialists and Trade Unionists meet in secret to chart our future. Firstly, we now know they are working towards a one world government. Secondly, they oppose communism. Thirdly, they want to see the ‘existing social conditions’ maintained. Lastly, they wish to extend these conditions to the third world. In other words, they weant to create a socialist one world government – overseen by a wealthy capitalist elite – who remain beyond the law and outside of socialist principles.
The Fabian’s emblem is a picture of a tortoise, with the words, When We Strike, We Strike Hard. This is supposed to be a subtle hint to the workers of the world that the Fabians have their best interests at heart, and the day will come when they really do strike the capitalists down. But this is clearly a Fabian inspired, Banker led, Labour Party/trade union maintained hoax on the working class.
Rothschild, Carnegie and Rockefeller funded earlier forms of socialism for the same reason Zuckerberg, Buffet, Sorus et al fund progressivism today – to appease the potentially restive working class. It is no different to a parent giving a child a treat every now and then in order to buy some peace.
Today’s working class are products of a billionaire backed, cultural Marxist re-education programme designed to invert reality, warp values, erase their history, denigrate their culture and expunge any last recollection of who they are. Dispossessed of their identity and devoid of critical faculties, this new generation of compliant global citizenry emerge from the education system as cabbages or communists.
The cabbages are kept amused by celebrity gossip, sports trivia and artificial highs, while the wannabe communists believe their progressive leadership’s promise of a bright new borderless dawn where the billionaire’s wealth will be equitably shared and the whole world will live happy ever after in a racially blind utopian collective. These people actually believe, come the revolution, they will be living in the same street as Mr Rothschild and Mr Rockefeller. They will never know that this ‘jam tomorrow’ arrangement is simply another means of keeping them in subjection.
The Fabian Society, The Britsh Labour Party and a plethora of ‘social justice’ organisations and activists have been toiling at the progressive coalface for decades, but the gap between them and their benevolent billionaires grows ever wider. The increasing trend towards wealth being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands is indicative of the rise of unregulated globalised capitalism, which is at odds with the old state moderated capitalism. This trend refects the contemporary crisis of billionaire-funded progressivism.
But it’s the old divide and rule approach. As long as starry eyed progressives remain programmed to fight nationalists, no one bothers to fight corporate tyranny. Meanwhile, right under their noses, the ‘pro-diversity’ billionaires are busy re-engineering the separate races, languages, cultures, values, nations and societies of the world into one rootless, borderless, diabolically mish-mashed but ultimately uniform collective that reflects their totalitarian dream.
Prime Ministers Douglas-Home, Heath, Thatcher, Blair, Brown and Cameron were/are Bilderberg. Heath, Blair, Brown and Cameron were/are Council on Foreign Relations. Wilson, Callaghan, Blair, Brown were/are Fabians.
These leaders were never partisan. They joined the same clubs and were on the same side – merely cloaking themselves in Labour and Conservative branding in order to pursue their over-riding globalist objective. In furtherance of which they would stop at nothing to achieve – even if that meant repeatedly lying, locking up innocent people, bringing about events that caused substantial loss of life or destroying whole peoples/nations.
In conclusion: Leading ‘progressives’ hold secret meetings and speak in code because they are practicing a monstrous deception on the voting public which, if disclosed, would preclude them from ever obtaining office.
Below you will see a selection of screenshots taken of the McGhee archive. The images (of which there are 100 in total) are constantly being taken down from the internet. If you wish to make copies, do so now. You may find additional images by carrying out a search using the following term: ‘Rare Bilderberg Paper Trail left by Elite Rhodes Scholar’.
Source/further reading
Babel inc. (Dr.Kerry Bolton, Black House Publishing 2014 )
The Fabian Society: the Masters of subversion unmasked by Cassivellaunus 2013
The downfall of the White British people 