Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

The Fabian Window – why can most people not see evil?

If I was not so useless with computers this post would have a big picture of the Fabian Window with it. However, “radio has the best pictures” so I will do without a picture.

For many years I have been baffled by why people (especially British people) are unable to see the blatent evil of the “Fabian Window” – a stained glass window produced by the Fabian Society (a group of “reformist” British socialists founded in the 1880s – and which still exists).

Over the last year or so Glenn Beck has been pointing at it (from time to time), but if my experience (years ago) is anything to go by, the main reactions he will get will be either blank looks or knowing nods and “can you not see the humour – the irony….”

No I freaking well can not – to me it is an open statement of evil. And yet politicians after politician (including Mr Blair) have stood beside it with a little smile on their faces – as if it was just a jolly jape.

Still what am I ranting on about…..

The window shows some men (leading Fabians) heating up an object and hammering it – much like craftsmen in the Middle Ages, accept the object is THE WORLD.

They are subjecting the world to fire – and beating it with hammers.


To “make it closer to the heart’s desire” (the writing on the window says so) – they are prepared to fill the world with fire and hammer it (regardless of the cost in lives) to make it a different shape.

And under the world destroying (sorry “remaking”) we see leading Fabians, heads bowed in worship.

But not worship of God or even the personificiation of reason (or anything like that) – no they are bowing their heads in worship of books.

THEIR OWN BOOKS – a case of self worship (of treating their own products as divine).

And what books – things like the “Minority Report” (the publication on the Poor Law that helped set in motion the take over by the state of old age provision and health care – and crush mutual aid and free association). The government had called for an investigation of the Poor Law and various changes were suggested (that was the Majority Report – the report written by people who actually knew something about the subject), but that report was not what was followed over the following years.

What was followed was the “Minority Report” written by Fabians who knew nothing – apart from about their collectivist desires (their “heart’s desire”) and, of course, their vast knowledge of politics (of manipulating politicians, civil servants, and public opinion).

And this book (The Minority Report) is the LEAST evil of the books the Fabians are shown worshipping (the others are much worse).

And who were the Fabians at this time?

Mr and Mrs Webb – who wanted to turn cathedrals into “municipal offices” and who were soon off whitewashing the Soviet Union.

What is a few tens of millions of murders between friends? Nothing to get upset about.

“They did not know Paul” – oh yes they did, just as the New Dealers in the United States who tried to destroy the files of the old Russian Section of the State Department knew. If they did not know what the files contained (evidence of the terror famine and so on) they would not have been so determined to destroy them. People who went on the same trips the Webbs went on (including MM – then a socialist writing for the Manchester Guardian) pointed out that the Soviets were telling obvious lies – and that it was obvious (obvious to everyone with eyes in their head) what was going on – the Webbs DECIDED “not to know”.

But it does not stop here.

The other two leading Fabians (both, of course, in the Fabian Window) were H. G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw.

These are held up as great cultural icons – by every university (and every entertainment film and television show and …. set in the period) good and kind men, producing a new culture. For their goodness is as stressed as much as their works.

But what were they really like? What did they really believe in.

Well there was H.G. Wells (another so called “reforminst” who became an apologist for totalitarism) who was as much a racist as he was a socialist – all these teeming millions of “blacks, brown and yellows” they would have to be “got rid of” a “gas” could be used……

How amusing! It is all just “irony” – accept it is not.

And George Bernard Shaw – another totalitarianism supporting “reforminst”.

He wanted every human being to present themselves before a government board – and if they could not “justfiy their existance” (by the standards of G.B. Shaw of course) the government was to murder them.

Murder them. How is kill them all – just a jolly jape?

Not even Stalin or Mao went that far – this is more like Pol Pot.

And, no, the “cultured” Mr Shaw was not “joking”.

Any more than one goes to all the trouble of making a stained glass window (not an easy thing) just as a “joke”. Not without a basic truth behind the “look we are all dressed up funny – mocking this Christian nonsense” stuff.

Saying something with a smile and in a light tone should not get someone a pass – NOT IF THEY MEAN IT, AND THEY DID.

But I am wasting my time. Sadly I do that a lot.

If people can not see evil when it is presented right in front of them (as with the Fabian Window) then my words are not going to move them.


  1. It is also very important to note the wolf in sheep’s clothing holding a banner marked FS (Fabian Society) in the top right-hand corner. That really shows the true spirit of the Fabians – evil scum seeking to destroy, but posing as angels.

  2. steves says:


    Link to the picture, a bit small but is as you say

  3. Sam Duncan says:

    No, Paul, you aren’t wasting your time. I found out about the Window – and the Fabians themselves, who I’d always taken at their own estimation as the “nice” Socialists – through one of your previous posts. I’m sure I’m not the only one but even if I were, your words had an effect.

  4. Paul Marks says:

    Yes Trooper – I should have mentioned the wolf in sheep’s clothing. Of course it is dismissed as yet more “humour”, but (in reality) it is their principle.

    Many thanks Steves and Sam.

    Of course something I have to keep reminding myself (for I am harsh person – sometimes unjustly harsh) is that there are nice socialists.

    For example, Malcolm Muggerage was a socialist (indeed working for a socialist publication) when he went on the trip to the Soviet Union (it should be remembed that the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” was intended to be a world government – we were all going to be “Soviet Socialist Republics” – so to call it “Russia” is an error). It was obvious to MM (as he had eyes in his head) that the Soviets were murdering vast numbers of people, yet his companions pretended to see nothing wrong.

    Of course he then attempted to alert his employer – who sacked him. They had no use for a journalist who told the truth. They wanted journalists of the New York Times type “all the news that’s fit to print” (i.e. all the “news” that FITS).

    I am remined of Malcolm when I see Congressman Denis K. in the United States – a socialist (in all but name), but a nice man.

    Why has President Obama not got rid of the Patriot Act? Why is he in fact engaged in a lot more snooping and controls (especially internet snooping and controls) than President Bush was? D.K. can not understand it.

    Any more than he can understand why Congress seems to have no say in the wars – or in the bailouts, or in anything else.

    Surely such things as the Federal Reserve system are not compatible with democracy – hundreds of billions of Dollars spent without being raised by Congress or voted on by Congress…..

    Yes D.K. – but it is not just the way of Obama that is incompatible with constitutional government and civil liberties, it is the whole modern Progressive state.

    DK wills the ends (a nice place where people get all their basic needs given to them by government), but he will not will the means – the police state. Not that these means will actually achieve the ends (not in the long run) but they are essential to the attempt – a state that gives you everything must also control everything, and the only way to do that (in the end) is by TERROR.

    Even in the 1700′s German thinkers understood that a “Welfare State” had to be part of a “Police State” (see Hayek’s “Constitution of Liberty” and his “Law, Legislation and Liberty”), but Denis (like all nice socialists – and there are many) “has not got the memo”. Of course these German political thinkers were a bit vague about the terror bit – but it is there, in the background of their plans (it has to be – there is no other way). However, a Germany made of many independent countries (many of them only “penny packet” sized – so in an afternoon’s walk you were in another country) and controled by traditional monarchies and aristocracies and free cities and …. (all bound by centuries of traditional practice) was hardly a suitable place for their schemes to be put into effect. Although various states (most noteably Prussia) made a few gestures.

    Only by unification (no more – I will take a short trip and be in another country) and TRANSFORMATION (for example getting rid of old conceptions of the “rule of law”) could a planned society be created, the progams of Bismark were a step – but only with the “War Socialism” of the First World War and the National Socialism of the 1930s (where private companies formally remain – but under the total control fo the state), is the full development of this form of collectivism to its logical conclusion revealed.

    Still back to Denis K.

    He would be shocked and horrified by mass murder – and he might well show more courage in trying (too late) to prevent it than I would.

    It should also be obvious from the above that Marxism is only one form of socialism – and not the oldest form.

    Indeed Karl Marx himself was never that interested in “the workers” – they were just a means to an end (the end being the collectivist society he had dreamed of since his teens). The “no state” of advanced communism (that is supposed to be the end condition of Marxism) and the “total state” of “German Socialism” (the Red flag and the Black flag) are not so far apart as their supporters claim – both are collectivist, and both have nothing but contempt for such limits on communal power as private property.

  5. Paul Marks says:

    What is at the root of all this?

    I suppose intellectually one can trace it back all the way to Plato (one can most things) and themore extreme Chinese “Legalists” – or all plans to create an ideal community by force.

    But I believe that a flaw in humans is actually to blame – do not fear, I am not going to come over all theological.

    Whether God exists or not (and certainly religion is no certain shield against collectivist plans – indeed “trying to build God’s Kingdom on Earth” is a demented idea that many Christians have fallen for), there is both good and bad in humans (in all of us).

    There is a desire to help others when they are trouble – but there is also a desire to use other as our tools, to control them.

    We can mask that evil desire (for evil it is) with the lie that this control would be “for their own good” – but it remains evil.

  6. Lynne says:

    Excellent post, Paul, and certainly not a waste of time. I first saw the Fabian window in a newspaper, the image with Blair standing to one side of the thing, a few years ago now. The image of a burning earth being hammered wasn’t lost on me. All that was missing was the sickle. Fabians are vermin. Doesn’t say much for our ruling elite, does it…

  7. Paul Marks says:

    Yes it was interesting Nick.

    I am in broad agreement with it.

    The conservative who looks to government to build moralty, and the liberal who looks to government to help the poor – both, unintentionally, open the door to the Fabians (and others).

    They open the gates of Hell.

  8. RAB says:

    Good piece Paul.

    Here is a quote from Shaw…

    “Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.”

    Lovely man! and a crap Dramatist. Pygmallion isn’t a warm funny rags to riches story, it’s hidden message is that anyone can be moulded into anything by superior Socialist intellect (Prof Higgins).

    I don’t know how long stain glass work takes, though I know it is a longish process, but if that is HG Wells top left fanning the flames, well he must have left the Fabians half way through, because that is also supposed to be him at the very bottom left, thumbing his nose at them all.

  9. Roue le Jour says:

    The simple answer to your question, Paul, is to be found in the old saw “If your not a socialist in your youth you’re heartless, if your still a socialist in your old age you’re a fuckin’ idiot.” Youthful idealism, in other words. You have to have lived a bit to realise that if you insist on trying to change human nature you’re going to end up having to kill people.

    RAB, I went to an all boys school. Guess who played Eliza Dolittle in the school play? Scared for life, I tell you. Scared for life. True story.

  10. Paul Marks says:

    I was always heartless then – no surprise there (I have never had the reputation for being a kindly man).

    RAB – there are a lot worse quotes from Shaw than that (and film of him saying them).

    However, look at the assumption – he just ASSUMES that a socialist system would produce all this stuff for everyone.

    The idea that there might be some economic difficulty does not even occur to him. He does not argue a case – because he does not even know he has to argue a case.

    So much for the great “intellectual” – and the “cultural elite” is full of such people, to this day.

    Their ignorance is only matched by their arrogance.

  11. NickM says:

    “Bernard Shaw is an excellent man; he has not an enemy in the world, and none of his friends like him either.” – Oscar Wilde.

    Roue, I think that is Churchill. The original went something like, “If a man isn’t a socialist by 20 he has no heart and if he isn’t a conservative by 30 he has no intellect”. But basically you are on the right track. I was a “centrist” as a kid – very New Labour – and am now disturbingly right-wing on many issues.

    Roue, it will come as little help to you that being at a co-ed school I do not share your Eliza pain. Perhaps you ought to set-up a support group? There might be tax-payer’s money in it to buy you a drink at least.

  12. RAB says:

    That was the third version of that post. I was having a bit of bother getting the site to accept them yesterday.

    I went to a single sex school too Roue, but the girls school was next door, mirror images of each other, joined by the gym and upper and lower assembly halls in the middle. So when we had drama productions, we at least had real live wimmin coopted in for the female parts.

    Then in my last year the school went Comprehensive and co-ed. The doors between the schools were unlocked and all these lovely visions we had been burning to get our hands on, came flooding in. Twas then I met my future wife.

    My French teacher caught us snogging under a desk in the senior Common Room one day…

    HIM I would expect nothing better from, but you Vanessa!!

    Mr Reynolds and I didn’t get on well at all.

  13. Okay folks, here’s a question, reasonably on-topic (sorry if you disagree, Paul).

    Can you guess where this quote is from:

    “For us world government is the final objective – and the United Nations the chosen instrument by which the world can move away from the anarchy of power politics towards the creation of a genuine world community and the rule of law. ”


  14. Roue le Jour says:

    If I might stay on Pygmalion, I always read Eliza’s dad’s speech about being part of the ‘undeserving poor’ as rather anti-socialist. Is it introduced for contrast, then, to show what the socialists are up against?

  15. NickM says:

    You do appreciate that the first requirement to being a true believer in socialism is a visceral hatred of the poor as they actually are?

  16. Paul Marks says:

    Trooper – I do agree that the UN (at least to activists and true believers) is a route to world government (in fact if not in name) and openly collectivist world government – that is what evil stuff like “Agenda 21″ is really about.

    Actually I was angry at your link (for a second or so) – because that document (not just the world government bit – all of it) is so freaking EVIL.

    It makes me sick at heart to read this stuff (plan, plan, plan….) – but “do not blame the messenger”. I wrote a post about an evil window – you put in a link to an evil document.

    Even “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need” – the full Communist message, with any problems blamed on that naughty man Stalin. Everything would be fine with socialism – if only good people were in charge……

    Of course the Labour party had rejected what the German SPD did in 1959 – i.e. a formal rejection of Marxism (Hugh Gaitskell did his best – but he failed). Of course Mr Blair did manage to get rid of Clause Four – but how sincere this man was is anyone’s guess.


    Yours is a really romantic story.

    At that age I was busy with political matters (including denouncing Labour supporters for Clause Four – “how can you deny this is what the Labour Party stands for – it is written on the back of the party card in your pocket”), but there was a chance that I might have “had a life” (as the saying goes).

    When I was 16 I turned the wrong way whilst walking along a street – if I had turned the correct way my whole life might have been different (who knows I might have married…), but still I do not want to ruin the setting of your story – which warmed my heart.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: