The Secret Society Dedicated to a New World Order: the Fabians

Societies Under Attack

On 27 April 1961, John F. Kennedy, in his address to the American Newspaper Publishers Association at a Bureau of Advertising dinner, famously stated that “we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings”. He explained the reasons for his sentiments, adding: “there is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it …  Our way of life is under attack”.

In Britain, likewise, there is mounting unease, even amongst Labour Party supporters. Close to 50% consider the Labour Party to be heading in the wrong direction, and a follow-up poll in early April revealed a crisis of confidence in the party’s policies. The vitriol extends to the population at large as a glance at X will reveal, with diatribes against Keir Starmer (based on broken promises), Rachel Reeves (for her withdrawal of support for the vulnerable and for imposing crippling new taxes on farms), Ed Miliband (on energy prices), Jess Phillips (for refusing to meet Oldham Council to discuss a rape gang inquiry), and Kim Leadbeater for pushing an Assisted Dying Bill that many experts consider to be denuded of safeguards.

And then there’s the shock of discovering four Labour MPs (Dame Angela Eagle, Chris Murray, Steve Race, and Sir Chris Bryant) meeting to discuss the “catastrophic” (Eagle’s word) ruling by the Supreme Court about biological sex. The Supreme Court’s Deputy President, Patrick Hodge, said, “The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex”. When biological women represent 51% of the population and trans an average of 1%, with biological sex differences manifested across all five senses, Eagle’s sentiments may leave a high proportion of people, especially women, outraged. The presumption is that these politicians are deluded or challenged by the truth (hence references to the Chancellor as “Rachel from Accounts”) but something far more sinister may be at play.

Connecting the Dots

Steve Jobs, Apple’s co-founder, was probably correct when he stated that you can only connect the dots “looking backwards”, and if you study the backgrounds of many of the MPs who have been the object of extensive criticism, a common thread emerged namely that all are (or were) active members of the Fabian Society. Now, the objectives of this Society are clear to anyone researching the topic, but are concealed from view in official Labour Party publications. Could it be the adherence of prominent Labour MPs to Fabian ideals, many alien to and not revealed to the wider British public, that accounts for the unease felt by the British public?

Here are some initial facts. The Fabian Society was established in London in 1884 to subvert the existing order and establish a Socialist World Government. These aims were to be achieved through political control, control of education, destruction of the nation-state and its culture, an attack on biology, and the approval of eugenics, all to be achieved using a gradualist approach, as employed by the Roman General, Quintus Fabius Cunctator, who avoided a frontal attack on Hannibal’s army in the third century B.C. Here is a photo of the plaque commemorating its founding site at 17 Onsaburgh Street.

Equally, a policy of cloaking the Society’s objectives was clear from the first Fabian crest of a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

This gave way to the current logo of international Fabianism with a tortoise and the words, “When I strike, I strike hard”.

It may be disconcerting to read of a group that might seek to achieve political power in order to further objectives that are clear only to members and not to the majority of the public. So let us probe somewhat further by expanding on the points already mentioned. We will begin with the Fabian objective of gaining political power and instituting a New World Order.

Political Power and Push for a New World Order

Sweeping plans to transform British society would rely on controlling large swathes of the population, including the working class. So in 1893, less than ten years following the foundation of the Fabian Society, the Independent Labour Party (ILP) was founded under the leadership of Fabian Keir Hardie, at a Fabian conference in 1893 through the merging of over 70 local Fabian societies. In 1897, the Fabian Executive announced that the Fabian Society would capture and control the British natives “for its profit and their own good”. By 1913, Beatrice Webb, wife of early founding member Sidney Webb, could observe that the Fabian Society and the Independent Labour Party were well on the way to controlling the policy of Britain’s Labour and Socialist movement.

This history is not taught at school, but corroboration comes from the Fabian Society itself when it writes that “hundreds of Labour politicians are members of the society, including Labour leader Keir Starmer MP and more than half his shadow cabinet, as well as senior figures in devolved and local government.” Sir Keir Starmer, former serving member of the Fabian Executive (like Rachel Reeves), stated in his acceptance speech outside Downing Street on 4 July 2024 that “our country needs a bigger reset, a rediscovery of who we are”. The use of the word “reset” merits a bit of unpacking.

In 2020, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and then-Prince Charles launched The Great Reset with backing from the United Nations (UN) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The foundation of the UN in 1945 owed much to Rockefeller, who one account described as a “Fabian Socialist”. If this is the case, it is not surprising that the British Fabian Society in the 1950s amended its principles, set down in the document known as the “Basis”, committing itself to the implementation of the Charter of the UN and the creation of “effective international institutions”, a means to achieving the wider objective to institute a New World Order.

With this objective in mind, in 1951, the Fabian Society established the Socialist International to co-ordinate international socialism, and the Socialist International soon after announced that “The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government”. The objective of establishing re-emerged on British shores in 1964 in the Manifesto of the Fabian-created Labour Party, which stated, “For us world government is the final objective – and the United Nations the chosen instrument”.

Where the IMF is concerned, note that this bankrolled the Fabian Society/Labour Party over decades, starting in 1946 when a loan of $4.34 billion was negotiated by Fabian economist John Maynard Keynes and facilitated by collaborator Harry Dexter White, who operated within the IMF as well as the US Treasury. 

So, not only do the Fabian Society and the WEF share the same backers, but they also share similar objectives. A case in point is the Fabian objective to eliminate private ownership of land, one set down in the Fabian Society programme of 1887 known as ‘The Basis’, one that chimes with the WEF’s vision of a world in which people own nothing (yet improbably remain happy). In current-day terms, there are several attacks on private land ownership. One comes from the introduction of inheritance tax on farms, a policy of the Fabian Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, which risks leading to the forced sale of privately-owned farmland. These risks could be avoided were savings made from the overseas aid budget controlled by Fabian Foreign Secretary David Lammy, but the Fabians within the Labour Party remain resolute in taking the money from British land-owners rather than overseas populations.

Other threats to land ownership come from an environment and energy policy that could see land appropriated for energy generation and re-wilding, with the driver and accelerator behind this being the so-called ‘climate catastrophe’ and (immigrant groups’?) need for more homes. You can read Labour’s plans, pushed by both Fabian Ed Miliband and Environment Secretary Steve Reed, a frequent speaker at Fabian conferences. And the control of land takes even more invidious turns, with a private Bill currently going through Parliament to control the 3,000 acres of the Malvern Hills.

Alarm bells have already started to ring since the Bill would not only provide powers to secure the commons (permitting the fencing off of areas now accessible, thereby reducing access) but also remove the ability of wards/parishes to elect their own trustees, all the while allowing increases beyond the current maximum in the local tax (the ‘precept’). It is estimated that £1m of local tax monies have been spent preparing the Bill and producing a sanitised message to the public, with no protests, it appears, from the Fabian former Home Secretary Dame Jacqui Smith of Malvern. Local access to the area could be under threat with investments flowing in for housing, with a new CEO of the Charity Commission sanctioning “contentious donations“ to charities. So keep an eye on developments, since actions here could set a dangerous precedent for other parts of Britain.

The Destruction of Culture

The Fabian objective of destroying the native culture has been a constant over the years. Bernard Shaw, a founding member, considered it “good statesmanship” to blow up every cathedral in the world. And 1960s Home Secretary and former Fabian Society chairman, Roy Jenkins, defined integration into Britain as “equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity”, a vision that de-prioritises indigenous culture. No surprises then that state-imposed “cultural diversity”, renamed ‘multiculturalism’, became the established policy of Fabian-Labour Governments.

This policy of state-enforced cultural diversity was closely linked with mass immigration. In the late 1990s, Tony Blair’s Fabian Labour regime embarked on a programme of systematic state-promoted mass immigration with the expressed aim of making British society “more multicultural”, and the Fabian Blair-Brown governments of 1997-2010 introduced a wide range of pro-immigrant policies, including the systematic and deliberate facilitation of mass immigration to transform British society. Indeed, it has been said that the real agenda of Fabian-Labour policy was to  change the ethnic and racial make-up of British society.

While the destruction of an entire nation’s cultural identity is morally reprehensible, the forcible transformation of a population’s ethnic and racial composition comes very close to the accepted definition of genocide. As reprehensible as it is, it links with the overarching aim to create a New World Order, with the destruction of the nation-state as a prerequisite.

The destruction of the status quo has been part of the Fabian ideology from the early days of Fabianism. It was portrayed in the ‘The Shaw Window’ (1910) designed by George Bernard Shaw and depicting Sidney Webb and George Bernard Shaw shattering the Earth to bits. Tony Blair revealed this stained-glass window in 2006 at the Shaw Library in the London School of Economics and Political Science, where it remains on permanent display. Bernard Shaw is the bearded man on the right in green.

And, as if to signal that this destruction will operate by stealth, the then-Fabian crest of a wolf in sheep’s clothing, appears close by. Should we be surprised that in 2025, few impediments are placed in the way of mass immigration by the Home Secretary, Fabian Yvette Cooper and her Minister for Border Security and Asylum, Dame Angela Eagle, former Chair of the Fabian Society at Oxford University?

The destruction is not limited to native ethnicity but also to programmes with a basis, very arguably, in eugenics. This is the focus of our next section.

Eugenics

In the early 1900s, a few prominent members of the Society, including Sidney and Beatrice Webb, George Bernard Shaw, and H.G. Wells, supported a eugenic approach to social policy. Sidney Webb, for example, asserted, “No consistent eugenist can be a ‘laissez-faire’ individualist unless he throws up the game in despair. He must interfere, interfere, interfere!” And he and Beatrice Webb in 1911, in their book The Prevention of Destitution, devoted a chapter to eugenics, arguing that this was a valid approach to the reduction of poverty.

As if this is not shocking enough, Shaw, briefly a lecturer at the Eugenic Education Society, wrote that “nothing but a eugenic religion can save our civilisation from the fate that has overtaken all previous civilisations”, and in 1933 he suggested that chemists should develop a “humane” poison gas for the extermination of those he regarded as social parasites. Should we be surprised that the very likely Fabian MP, Kim Leadbeater, is promoting the Assisted Dying Bill, which, in committee stage, rejected 300 safeguards? Two other proponents on this committee, the only two with ministerial portfolios, were Fabian Sarah Sackman MP (Minister for Courts and Legal Services) and Stephen Kinnock (Minister for Care), a likely Fabian.

Transhumanism

The biological engineering of humans is another recurring Fabian theme. Bertrand Russell, a Fabian, stated in 1952 in his book The Impact of Science on Society:

Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine from a very early age to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers-that-be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy because the government will tell them that they are so.

Aldous Huxley (1894-1963) was also a Fabian and best known for his 1932 book  Brave New World, which describes a dystopian future where humans are biologically engineered.

His brother, Julian Huxley (1887-1975), likewise a Fabian, was also the first Director-General of UNESCO, President of the Eugenics Society, and responsible for coining the term ‘transhumanism’. Indeed, he founded the UN-affiliated International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which has been described as using environmentalism as a cover for initiatives concerning transhumanism and genetic engineering.

And, where transhumanism is concerned, the transgender agenda is regarded by some commentators as a precursor to it. Martine Rothblatt, for example, has written in the 2011 book From Transgender to Transhuman: a Manifesto on the Freedom of Form, that “in transcending biology, technology offers an explosion of sexual identities … [and] human identities … [leading to] transhumanism … [and] hybrid human-computer species”. Is it possible that the hostile reaction of Dame Angela Eagle to the Supreme Court’s ruling that the term woman in the Equality Act 2010 refers to a biological woman has its origin in the fear that this interpretation could disrupt and derail the Fabian transhumanist agenda? Is this why at the time of going to press, Sir Keir Starmer paraphrased the ruling as referring to the fact that “a woman is an adult female”, omitting any reference to the Court’s all-important references to the biological origins of that female?

Fabians in Britain

In 2021, The Fabian Society published ‘The Road Ahead’, written by then-opposition Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer. The report is full of generalities, but there are some startling statements. Climate change is presented as a given, with an assertion that climate change denial is “utterly discredited” and an assertion that “Nationalism represents an attempt to divide people from one another”. Do we see here the weaving of a fake narrative (climate change) and an attempt to destroy the nation-state through a false critique of nationalism? There is also a commitment to “restore honesty, decency and transparency in public life”.

Now, in 2025, what are we to make of this now with a Cabinet in which half its members are Fabians? With government officers resisting public inquiries into rape gangs and imposing financial measures on farmers that have met with despair across the farming community, we might look in vain for evidence of “decency”. And with many election pledges by the Labour leader pre-election broken on coming to power, we might take pledges to “restore honesty” with a big pinch of salt. And with Labour’s support of an Assisted Dying Bill that is denuded of vital safeguards and that could offer a long and painful death, signs of “decency” are in short supply. Perhaps we should take these pledges as relics of the wolf in sheep’s clothing crest and just assume that something contrary to the meaning of these principles is intended.

And these contradictions give rise to the strong sense of unease experienced in Britain today. For, this may have its roots not just in the vagaries of politicians, but in what transpires to be a concerted effort by Fabians, in and out of government, to fulfil an agenda, one known to them but not the public. And the numbers following this hidden agenda are huge, with over half (over 140) of Labour MPs and half the Cabinet being confirmed Fabians. These include:

• Sir Keir Starmer,
• Chancellor Rachel Reeves (both previously on the Fabian Executive Committee),
• Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner,
• Yvette Cooper (Home Secretary),
• Ed Miliband (Secretary for Energy Security and Net Zero),
• Wes Streeting (Secretary for Health and Social Care),
• Liz Kendall (Secretary for Work and Pensions),
• Dame Angela Eagle (Minister of State for Border Security and Asylum),
• Hilary Benn (Secretary for N Ireland),
• Sir Chris Bryant (Minister of State for Data Protection and Telecoms and the Creative Industries and also chair of the Parliamentary Standards Committee),
• Lucy Powell (Leader of the House), and
• Sarah Sackman (Minister for Courts and Legal Services).

Other Fabians may include all those speaking at Fabian events, including Lisa Nandy (Secretary for Culture, Media and Sport), and those with portfolios for:

• Europe (Stephen Doughty),
• Housing (Matthew Pennycook),
• Local Government (Jim McMahon),
• Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds),
• Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls (Jess Phillips), and
• Janet Daby (Minister for Children and Families).

Outside the House of Commons, we find Dame Margaret Hodge MP, Peter Mandelson, as well as Harriet Harman and Sadiq Khan as Fabians, with the last named being former vice-presidents of the Fabian Society. Note that all Prime Ministers of the Labour Party have been Fabians, and Fabians are also found amongst senior figures in devolved and local governments.

Transparency and Debate Needed

Only a small proportion of the MPs named above have declared their affiliation with the Fabian Society, and even if they were to do so, the majority of people are unlikely to appreciate the hidden agendas involved.  Now that it is nearly 150 years since the establishment of the Fabian Society, it is time that the wolf in sheep’s clothing be exposed, and that a national debate be initiated. As part of this, perhaps, questions could be posed regarding whether the Fabians in the UK Government are guilty of malfeasance/misfeasance and/or nonfeasance of public office, and if so, in which type of courts cases could best be heard.

Until then, accuracy demands that the party in office be known as the ‘Fabian-Labour Party’ and that the public learn the lessons of history, including the impact the Fabians have had in Soviet Russia, Communist China, Fascist Italy and Germany, and modern-day Australia.

Ignorance is far from bliss, and nothing less than the truth will set us free.