Stormtroopers of the New World Order

[ehnyah]

Stormtroopers of the New World Order

July 20, 2005
Stormtroopers of the New World Order
Posted by Daniel McAdams at July 20, 2005 09:34 PM


Today Congress passed the truly terrifying foreign affairs authorization act with an amendment that few seem to have paid attention to, but which will codify the new world order and will provide the critical back side of the people's revolution Leninist tsunamis. I am referring to an amendment by California Congressman David Drier to establish an "Active Response Corps" composed of federal employees, "employees of the Department of State including foreign service nationals, employees of the United States Agency of International Development, employees of any other Executive agency...and employees of the legislative and judicial branches," as well as employees of the non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The purpose of these rapid-response shock troops will be to "provide assistance in support of stabilization and reconstruction activities in foreign countries that are in, or are in transition from, or are likely to enter into, conflict or civil strife."

What does this mean in plain language? The color-coded revolutions that are funded by the US government overtly through the National Endowment for Democracy, its various cutout organizations like the CIA-front Freedom House, and USAID, and others, and covertly through the CIA itself have heretofore somewhat neglected the stabilization phase of the immediate post coup d'etat period, and that is a lot to leave up to chance after so much money has been spent. It is one thing to produce a mountain of black propaganda about the phony massacre in Uzbekistan, but as we have seen the variables can be tricky and may not produce the action required on the ground in the short run. And then critical momentum is lost. Additionally, look at how much money was spent to overthrow popular (and freely-elected) Belarusian leader Aleksander Lukashenka and there was no "stabilization" to back-up the couple of dozen paid protesters in the streets.

As John Laughland has pointed out in the must-read two-part series, "The technique of a coup d'etat" on Sanders Research Associates' website (not a subscriber yet? Give all your money to Lew and what is left to Chris Sanders):
the survival of the myth of spontaneous popular revolution is depressing in view of the ample literature on the coup d'etat, and on the main factors and tactics by which to bring one about.

It was, of course, Lenin who developed the organizational structure for overthrowing a regime which we now know as a political party. He differed from Marx in that he did not think that historical change was the result of inelecutable anonymous forces, but it had to be worked for.

But what use is the application of the Lenin and Trotsky perfected techniques of the coup d'etat without the stabilization shock troops on the ground to consolidate the gains? Lebanon's Cedar Revolution was ambiguous to say the least. Imagine what could have been done with stabilization troops available to husband the votes into a more creative expression of the universal democratic imperative.

John Laughland writes:
One final historical point before we move onto part II, a discussion of the present, and that is the role of the military in conducting covert operations and influencing political change. This is something which some contemporary analysts are happy to admit is deployed today: Robert Kaplan writes approvingly of how the American military is and should be used to "promote democracy." Kaplan says deliciously that a phone call from a US general is often a better way for promoting political change in a third country than a phone call from the local US ambassador. And he approvingly quotes an Army Special Operations officer saying, "whoever the president of Kenya is, the same group of guys run their special forces and the President's bodyguards. We've trained them. That translates into diplomatic leverage."

That is fine, but how much better to cover over the military footprint and leave the "stabilization" aspect of the coup d'etat up to the "Active Response Corps" in the foreground, backed up by the military of course.

So the little noticed Active Response Corps will provide the core "stabilization" force to resist the backlash against obviously foreign-engineered coups d'etat. After all, the revolution is still relatively easy to foment, particularly considering the economies of scale created since the CIA coup against Sali Berisha in Albania in 1996 (after Berisha refused to allow Sazan Island to be used by the CIA as a listening post for Yugoslavia). After the post-modern performance art color coded revolutions, the previous messy attempts against folks like Kocharian in Armenia and successful coups against Meciar in Slovakia and so many others in the 1990s seem positively crass and common by comparison.

No more. This is a new dawn in cooperation between the State Department, CIA and NGOs to make sure that the democratic universal imperative is not only initiated but guaranteed to consolidate. It is not guaranteed that every regime will have the consolidation moxie that an Eduard Shevardnadze had after he was set by the CIA to lead the coup against popularly-elected Zviad Gamsakurdia (who was judged too pro-Moscow). And even poor old Shevy stands as a cautionary tale of what can happen if the consolidation and stabilization bones go flaccid: there is always a minister or aide who is willing to court the empire to overthrow the nouveau regime as it passes into ancienne territory.

And the shock trooper amendment? It passed unanimously by voice vote. No one on the floor would offer opposition. Of course my boss Ron Paul voted against the final passage, for this and a million other reasons. But the storm troopers are now law. Look out.

http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/008522.html#more

--

NeoCons: Radical Foreign Policy for U.S. Global Empire

What is a NeoCon? Neocon is a neo-conservative who began as anti-Stalinist Trotskist before moving to the far right in U.S. politics. NeoCons have roots in the Leon Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s. In the 1950s and 1970s that movement morphed into anti-communist liberalism. Today the NeoCons are embedded in the imperial right and militarism of the U.S. defense and foreign affairs departments. If this sounds like muddled thinking, then you are not alone in such an assessment.

Continued:

http://www.peaceaware.com/NeoCon.shtml

[ehnyah]

The Truth Hurts: Coulter and Horowitz both Fabian Socialists

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/images/coulter-paid.jpg

Fabian Socialists: David Horowitz and Ann Coulter There is a "Third Kind" living amongst us in this Republic. This "Third Kind" comes in a political package disguising themselves as Republicans, or World Conservatives of the International Democrat Union and Democrats, or World Liberals of The Third Way.

The "Third Kind" wants to establish a self-regulating classless society on planet earth. I have had radio encounters with two Republican members of the "Third Kind," Ann Coulter (author of the best seller Slander) and David Horowitz (author of Empire and Revolution and How to Beat the Democrats and Other Subversive Ideas).

People such as Coulter and Horowitz do not want to talk about the very real existence of the "Third Kind" nor do they want you to know what is really taking place in this Republic and the world.

The "Third Kind" is actually the Radical Capitalist Class (RCC). The Radical Capitalist Class is a group of people that are trying desperately to spread a very specific American/British Capitalism based on Fabian Socialism to encompass the globe.

It is the belief of the RCC that this Capitalism if left unopposed will naturally evolve into a Socialism that will pave the way for Communism.

The RCC uses a continuous process known as Permanent Revolution (War, Revolution and Terrorism) to remove all impediments (national sovereignty) for the necessary establishment of Free Trade in order to create a global Free Market System (Economic Democracy), catalyst for Socialism.

The ideas of this "Third Kind" are alien to the American people. Here are a few facts to ponder:

In 1983, former Trilateral Commission (a Fabian Society Front group) members, George Bush Sr. and Margaret Thatcher, founded an organization called the International Democratic Union (IDU).

The IDU views itself as an organization of World Conservatives dedicated to establishing a Free Market System and a "compassionate conservatism." There are 70 member parties from around the world to include the Republican Party...

At the gatherings of the IDU the members set around and plot strategy "to win the political argument" and "planning winning election strategies" for World Conservatism.

Every four years the IDU holds a major meeting to coincide with the Republican National Convention in the same city, at the same time and with the Republican National Committee.

Recently (June 10, 2002) George W. Bush hosted an election strategy meeting of the IDU in the White House at which the President announced to the world of this nation's right to carry out pre-emptive military strikes (translated, raw aggression) against Terrorists wherever they may be. The IDU gave overwhelming support to this policy.

All these facts came from a 1979 Trilateral Commission membership list, the June 11, 2002 Toledo Blade, the May 8, 2002 Wall St. Journal and www.IDU.org.

Yet, when the current and leading political cheerleaders of the Republican Party, namely Coulter and Horowitz, were confronted with the IDU's existence, they chanted "conspiracy theory" and pleaded ignorance, despite saying more than they should have.

[ehnyah]

Now for the Radio Encounters of the Third Kind:

Anne Coulter, a bouncy and vivacious blonde, recently had been the darling on the major media talking head shows plugging her (at that time) recent best seller Slander in support of the Republican Party's election strategy.

Various talk show hosts have billed her as one of America's most intelligent women and an expert on the politics of the Republican Party. Coulter's message is about how the terrible Liberal Democrats along with the Liberal biased Media slanders conservatives, especially conservatives of the Religious Right. Her biggest criticism of these "Socialist radicals" is the liberal accusing the conservative of 'not being cerebral.'

Ms. Coulter was interviewed on a July 19, 2002 Omaha, Nebraska AM radio talk show.

I had the opportunity to be a phone in guest. I wanted to know what kind of response Anne Coulter would give when confronted about the Republican Party's membership in the IDU. In the first part of the interview Anne bemoaned the fact that the Religious Right is slandered by the Liberal biased Media for belief in a higher being and tax cuts.

Coulter also observed when media consumers have a choice they overwhelmingly choose conservative talk shows. One thing she did not explain is why the Liberal biased Media networks had her on their Liberal biased programs to speak kindly of conservatives.

Before I got to ask my very specific question she made the claim the Liberal biased Media is 100% Socialist.

The question: "I am a patriotic conservative. I am so glad you stated there is a liberal control of the press. My research shows in some way this is a two way street. These same liberals since 1983 have not said a word about the Republican Party's membership of the International Democrat Union, that is promoting the same liberal agenda on a global basis and then passes it off as world conservatism. Can you enlighten me on that?"

The answer:

No, (emitting an uneasy laugh) I think that is your field of expertise. I don't exactly know what you are talking about.

The next question:

"That is exactly what I run into. The rank and file Republican does not know the Republican Party is a member of a global Socialist organization. You have demonstrated in the first half of your interview that you are against this stuff and Gee, shouldn't we know the Republican Party is promoting international Socialism?"

The answer: "I, I...I don't think so--actually--um. I mean I never understood the idea, um, um this, this um, secret organization theory, what are they doing behind our backs? They take half our money. When Clinton was president he was gunning down religious fringe groups, shipping little boys back to Cuba and I, umm, ummm, (now with her voice raising) They take half our money, wetland designation tells us what we can not do with our land, what exactly do you think they are doing secretly, (voice really tense and still raising in tone) Good God Look what they are doing right in front of us!"

Next question:

"That is the point I am driving at! You can ask any chairman of a state Republican Party about the Republican Party membership in an international socialist organization."

Hurried response:

"We're talking about something I--ummm--don't think exists. We've kind of gone off the road here. Can I have another call?"

It was more than obvious Anne Coulter did not want to discuss the IDU.

There are only two possible reasons for this. One of course is she really did not know about the IDU. If this is the case then it is a stretch of the imagination to consider Ms. Coulter an expert on Republican politics. The second reason is obviously she did know about the IDU and wasn't about to enter into a public discussion about the Republican Party's membership in an international Socialist organization.

The plot thickens!

A few weeks later David Horowitz was on the same radio station (August 6, 2002). Horowitz's interview was prefaced by one of the hosts describing how a previous interview was scheduled in advance but had to be cancelled at the last minute because Mr. Horowitz had been summoned to the George W. Bush Waco Texas ranch to talk election strategy. This was done to demonstrate the importance of his book How to Defeat the Democrats and Other Subversive Ideas. Would Mr. Horowitz's response be similar to Ms. Coulter's?

First question:

"Hello Mr. Horowitz, how are you?" Answer:

"Fine."

Second question:

"I was lucky enough to get an advanced uncorrected readers copy of How to Beat the Democrats. I do believe it is a book all Republicans should read. My question is: I understand the tactics you are trying to put across to the Republicans but, in lieu of the recent split between Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman, it seems there is a mad rush of Democrats going to the center, basically through the aegis of the Democratic Leadership Council which is also a member of an international organization called The Third Way. Consequently, at the same time I started reading articles a couple of months ago, one from the Wall Street Journal for May 8, something about an organization called the International Democrat Union made up of World Conservatives, then in the early part of June there was an IDU meeting at the White House that posed these World Conservatives were right of center."

Does the Republican membership of an international organization going to the right and vacating the center open the opportunity for the likes of Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton, rated by the DLC as a moderate to capture the political center?

Horowitz: "Well look! You don't want to be fooled by rhetoric or labels. How solid is Joe Lieberman's conservative credentials, when it took him ten seconds to abandon all his principals to jump into the arms of Maxine Waters when he got that nomination."

[Author's note: Mr. Horowitz cautions about being fooled by labels and rhetoric, because I assume they are misleading. Notice he did not acknowledge the existence of the IDU.]

"The Democratic Party is pulled to the left by the unions, the racist NAACP leftists, and the teachers union. All these people are hard left. It is a left wing party. It will remain left wing until it is beaten year after year."

[Author's note: Horowitz then continues by painting the Democratic Party with a list of labels using his best conservative rhetoric, as urged in his book How to Beat the Democrats. Now pay close attention to the following comparison. Horowitz is still using labels and conservative rhetoric, see page 67 of How to Beat the Democrats.]

"If you look at John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, you will not find one scintilla of difference between them. Kennedy was a hawk on defense. He was a militant anti-communist. He was for capital gains tax cut and a balanced budget. And that should tell you how far to the left American politics has slid in the last 40 years."

[Author's note: Yes, Horowitz is correct, dont get fooled by labels or rhetoric. The key phrase from the above quotation is 'And that should tell you how far to the left American politics has slid to the left.'

Consider that for a moment. Horowitz has hinted the Republican Party has moved to the left right along with the Democrats!]

Question: Do you have any comments on the International Democrat Union?

Horowitz: The Democrats would say: 'well...I...you know. I don't know, I don't know what the International Democrat Union is . . . an international organization? The Third Way is a deception that we used to use when we were in the left to avoid the stigma of Communism without embracing the American way. And that to bear, Hillary Clinton is a Socialist. I don't care what they say in front of the cameras. They understand where the American people are and they are out to fool them. And Republicans have to be vicious in their attacks on the Democrats and strike first or be on the defensive.

[Author's note: Horowitz claims he doesn't know what the IDU is or even if it is an international organization. He then proceeds to use labels and conservative rhetoric to lead away from talking about the IDU. Please also note Horowitz does recognize the existence of the Third Way.]

Question: It seems the Republican Party, being a member of the International Democrat Union according to their web site, they are determining election policies in their respective member parties in their respective countries?

[Author's note: Pay close attention to the next response!]

Horowitz: Thats that's (raising his voice) way too conspiratorial. (his voice, still raising in intensity) Look! Just imagine Al Gore was president when 911 Happened! If George Bush was not in there we would not have declared war on the al-Qaeda! We would have not taken the Taliban down! And there would have been tens of thousands more Dead Americans! That's how I determine my politics! I don't determine them by getting on the internet and finding some international organization!

[The Permanent Revolution is a continuous process of War, Revolution and Terror.] If you notice from the above quote Horowitz determines his politics by waging war and predicting future terror. And still Horowitz will not acknowledge or even address the existence of the IDU. Instead he yells conspiracy!]

Statement: But I found this information in the newspapers and the Wall Street Journal!

Horowitz (now very agitated): The United States is part of the UN. It's a left wing organization. The US is in the UN, does that make the US left wing? The UN is always denouncing the United States, Britain and Israel. That's their business these days.

[Authors note: Just a few minutes ago Horowitz acknowledged a severe 40 year leftward drift in American politics.]

Question and statement (with a slight chuckle): OK, I'm glad you brought that up! If the UN is a left wing organization, then why is the Republican Party pushing International Free Trade, which is a left wing policy? (my voice rising trying to be heard over the loud protestations of Horowitz), I can even back that up with Hamilton's Essay #12 from The Federalist Papers.

Horowitz (successfully drowning out my efforts): Ah Look! I encounter people like you all the time. Politics is a complex business, OK? (speed of elocution picks up), You don't get to be morally pure on everything! Just because the US doesn't get out of the UN doesn't make it a left wing party.

[Author's note: I don't wear brown-shirt khakis and I definitely do not have pictures of Hitler on my walls. And don't forget Horowitz said there was no difference between Kennedy and Reagan. This is a good indication America just may be well left of the perceived American political center.]

Horowitz (quickly changing to an apologetic and condescending tone): I know I am on a religious station. Politics is the art of the possible, not the ideal! There is a big difference between politics and religion. Religion is about getting into heaven and if you mess with the Devil you're damned. In politics& politics is about getting into office! You make pacts with the devil all the time putting together a majority coalition to allow you to rule!

End of interview. (cont.)

[ehnyah]

Horowitz, just like Anne Coulter, denied knowing of the International Democratic Union, but did not hesitate to label something he didn't know about a conspiracy theory.

Again there are only two possible reasons for this. One is Horowitz didn't know of the IDU. But, how could a man, who had been summoned to George Bush's presence, to discuss electoral strategy (a man claiming to have authored the Republican manual for election strategy) have not known about the June 10th, 2002 White House hosting of an IDU election strategy session that was covered by the Associated Press?

Something is grossly wrong here. Which leads to the second reason. Horowitz does know about the IDU and does not want the rank and file Republican to know about it.

There may be a reason for Mr. Horowitz's ignorance of the IDU. Horowitz does know about the Permanent Revolution. This he cannot deny.

There is a section of How to Defeat the Democrats dedicated to The Unrepentant Left. In Chapter 4, on page 199, Horowitz vents his anger at a member of the radical left. It goes like this:

"Far from renouncing her communist and terrorist past, Boudin is part of the same radical network that fuels Linda Evans' seditious projects and remains an integeral part of the permanent revolution both signed onto in the 1960s."

The use of the term 'permanent revolution,' was not some idle choice of vitriolic rhetoric to demean the radical left. Horowitz knew exactly what he was writing. One only has to turn to his 1969 epic Empire and Revolution. A series of footnotes at the bottom of pages 28, 29 and 30 reveals the alter ego of Horowitz.

"Lenin referred to 'uninterrupted' or 'continuous' revolution rather than 'permanent revolution,' which had been revived as a term by Parvus and Trotsky." (p. 28.)

"The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society." (p.29.)

"Capitalist production according to Marx and Engels had centralized population and industry and concentrated property in a few hands. The 'necessary consequence' of this was political centralization.

Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier and one customs-tariff." (p. 30.)

David Horowitz knows of the existence of the Permanent Revolution. Like any other conflict of man there are at least two sides in the struggle.

In the case of the Permanent Revolution the combatants have been Worker Socialists (The Third Way) and Corporate Socialists (today's International Democrat Union). In his youth Horowitz was very active and a leader of The Third Way. In his maturity Horowitz deserted his Worker Socialist brothers in Permanent Revolution and switched sides to the Corporate Socialist cause, now his new brothers in Permanent Revolution.

Like his days in The Third Way, to couch his communism and shun his allegiance to America, Horowitz now hides his communism behind a conservative cloak of new found Americanism in the form of World Conservatism.

But for some reason Horowitz, The Republican National Committee and the Republican Party do not want the rank and file members of the party to know the concept of compassionate conservatism comes from the International Democrat Union, just another Fabian Socialist front group helping to transform Capitalism into Communism.

Just a few last comments. Please consider all the things Horowitz did say. He compared the perceived conservative Ronald Reagan to a 1960s very liberal Democrat and graduate of the Fabian Socialist London School of Economics, John F. Kennedy. Horowitz acknowledged a severe leftward drift in American politics. And most damning of all, in order for the Republican "Third Kind" to rule (not get elected) they must consistently "make pacts with the Devil."

These "Third Kind" ideas are most definitely alien to Christian, Patriotic, Conservative Americans.

It is time for the people of this Republic to acknowledge the Republican Party is just another Communist front organization of the Permanent Revolution -- the dialectical evolution of Capitalism into Communism.

http://sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1533

[ehnyah]

British Revisionism and the Fabian Society
by Niki Raapana, under revision April 25, 2005


http://nord.twu.net/acl/images/fabian.jpg

The Fabian Society was created after a suicide note left by Derby Fabian Henry Hutchinson also left 10,000 British pounds to the Fabians "for propaganda and other purposes." Much like its spawn, political communitarianism, Fabian socialism is unknown to most Americans.

Fabianism is elite training in socialist propaganda. Fabian followers are called "agents for change." The Fabians are installed in every government agency in the world, and they influence all mainstream media outlets. They are the reason Americans never hear about communitarianism or Local Agenda 21. For a good example of how Fabian propaganda is utilized by Hollywood, see the movie "The Interpreter" starring Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn. The propaganda campaign to convince Americans the United Nations' International Criminal Court is a valid authority has begun in earnest. This movie never tells us about the Fabian definition of "human rights." It never once mentions the laws and programs limiting private property rights already enforced on U.S. soil. Fabian rhetoric never discusses the real programs and laws. Fabians only speak of lofty, vague communist ideals like "peace" and "equality." Listen closely to the movie's closing comments about the ICC.

The founder of American communitarianism, Dr. Amitai Etzioni, is a Fabian. His latest book, From Empire to Community: A New Approach to International Relations outlines the Fabian's goals for creating a stronger global government. The Communitarian "approach" shifts the focus from legitimate constitutional governments to a new form of governance called "community government." The Fabians plan to rule American neighborhoods based on the Soviet and Chinese models for totalitarian communities. In their skewed world view it is acceptable and okay to lie and sneak new fascist systems into formerly free countries, because ultimately it will create a lovely Utopian paradise on Mother Earth. Their key phrases are "global security," "human rights," "hummanitarian," "social justice," and "peace." You will never hear a Fabian defend legitimate national law based in the U.S. Bill of Rights. They call individual liberty and freedom "old-fashioned" and "outdated." Fabian propagandists distort reality. Their goal is to confuse and manipulate free people into giving up their freedom for world peace and security. Fabians say the American principles for freedom must be balanced in order to "save the planet" and "stop global terrorism." (They never admit they're the terrorists.)



Where did the Fabians originate?

In 1847 The London Communist League was a small group of elite imperialists who worked out an innovative way to regain and maintain control of the world. In 1776 the American colonials had successfully used common sense and an armed civilian popualation to take control of their own property, markets, and labor. The Americans won their independence and freedom from Imperialist control with logic and gunpowder. So, the defeated (but never dismantled) British Empire moved into the Middle East and Africa where they conquered many new territories. The legacy of British Imperial policies lingers to this day in scores of violent crises from South Africa to Iraq to Palestine. The British and Dutch Empires controlled the global drug trade (poppies) between India and China. The British Empire created Israel out of their Mandate for Palestine. British "lords" ruled South Africa and established the policy of apartheid. Iraq won their independence from Great Britian in 1925. Today there are still 16 colonies in the 50 countries that make up the British "Commonwealth."

Private property rights was not only the basis for the American Revolution, but it was also the basis for many revolutions against the Empires of the world, including France, Russia, Portugul, Spain, Netherlands, the Ottoman and more. Unable to beat the American "idea" of freedom with logic or common sense, Karl Marx was hired by the London Communist League to add revolutionary flair to the confusing and unsubstantiated formula called the Hegelian dialectic. Their idea was to turn American logic and common sense into senseless mumbo-jumbo. The Americans said private property rights for the comman man were the basis for his freedom, so the crafty London Communists said private property rights were the basis for his slavery.

The Communist-Imperialists infiltrated every national revolution based on the American idea. They successfully ruined the French Revolution in 1789 with the assistance of Jacobin agents of change. From that point forward they undermined every legitimate revolution against imperialism. They called their central government a "dictatorship of the proletariat." The 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto outlined the blueprint for creating a one-world government under a dictatorship of the proletariat using violence and later, propaganda.

For fifty years they instigated violent revolutions against governments that protected the owners of private property. They expanded their tactics from murder and mayhem to sneaky infiltration and practiced deceit in 1894. Spartacus School.net.co.uk gives a nice overview of the Fabians: "The Fabians believed that capitalism had created an unjust and inefficient society. They agreed that the ultimate aim of the group should be to reconstruct 'society in accordance with the highest moral possibilities'. The Fabians rejected the revolutionary socialism of H. M. Hyndman and the Social Democratic Federation and were concerned with helping society to move to a socialist society 'as painless and effective as possible'." (The "highest moral possibilities" is the same mantra used by Dr. Etzioni and his "moral" communitarians.)

The Society expanded under Beatrice and Sidney Webb, founders of the London School of Economics. George Bernard Shaw became one of the first members of the London Fabian Society. His biographers describe Fabian socialism like this: "..The difference from other organizations of the sort was that they were to do it not through revolution, as Marx advised, but by systematic, progressive legislation, enhanced by persuasion and mass education.. He favored gradualism over revolution and in a pamphlet he wrote in 1897 he predicted that: socialism will come by prosaic installments of public regulation and public administration, enacted by ordinary governments."

The Fabian Society and their London School of Economics promoted the American base of operations with the Harvard Socialist Club.

Today the British Fabians lead the world toward the Ultimate Third Way. American presidents are educated at elite British univeristies on scholarships provided by British conquerors (Cecil Rhodes-Rhodesia). And what about their partners in the heroin trade between India and China? Well just because a member of the Dutch Royal family was once a Nazi, don't you know the Dutch are more moral now? The International Court of Justice is at the Dutch Imperial Palace at The Hague.

[jetsetlemming]

While I know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about, there are some things that bother me. You interchange "international democrat society" and "international democratic society". Democrat and democratic is different. America is a democracy, but not ruled by the democrats. The organization sounds like its democratic, and not of the democratic party.