TV Licensing notice of withdrawal of implied access.

This is the notice of withdrawal of implied right of access.  You can send this to the BBC.  You do not need to sign your name or give your name to them.  You are “The Occupier” that is it!
———————————————————————————————————————

TV Licensing 

Bristol

BS98 1TL

Date 


Occupier:

address
post code  

“TV Licencing 

Under common law I revoke your right of implied access. You have no right to contact me, knock on my door, or contact me in any way. 


If you continue to send letters to this address they will be kept as evidence of harassment. 


I do not watch or listen to any live broadcasts, i do not watch or record live TV programmes on any channel or device, or download or watch BBC programmes on iPlayer “

The Occupier 

———————————————————————————————————————-
“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it, the storm may enter, the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.”
William Pitt the Elder, 1708-1778″


http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Withholding%20implied%20right%20of%20access.htm

The Fourth British Empire (or not)

The Fourth British Empire

by Cassivellaunus, 25 May 2013

“As we look around us we see a Fourth British Empire with characteristics of its own. At present it lacks the individuality which is given to political institutions by a name, a formula, a statement of principles. This very lack of formula is characteristic of the Fourth Empire” 

                          – Henry Vincent Hodson, 1948

The British Empire is generally held to have been ruled by the Royal Family. In reality, the monarch in Britain has always had to share power with members of the aristocracy and, increasingly, with the growing liberal capitalist middle classes, elements of which, over time, successfully usurped the power of the Crown to become Britain’s invisible rulers.

Another misconception is that the British Empire came to an end with its official dissolution and the creation of the Commonwealth. As shown below, the Empire is very much alive and kicking, only that (1) it no longer is British and (2) it is subordinated to the international New World Order.

First British Empire (1583 – 1783)

The First British Empire came into being with the acquisition of territories outside the British Isles, such as in North America, the Caribbean, India and later Australia, and ended with the American Revolution of 1775 – which led to America’s independence from Britain in 1783.

Second British Empire (1783 – 1848/1910)

In the wake of the American Revolution and the loss of the North American colonies, the British Empire entered a new phase, called the Second British Empire, in which attention was shifted from America to Asia and, later, to Africa, where the Empire expanded its power and influence.

The end of this Second Empire was less abrupt than that of its predecessor, stretching over a period of half a century, from the mid-1800s into the early 1900s. Its demise was set in motion around the time of the 1848 Paris Commune, when the Colonies began to be granted self-government, eventually becoming Dominions, that is, territories nominally under British sovereignty but enjoying self-government except as in such matters as foreign affairs (that were to be conducted in co-operation with the United Kingdom).

This latter part of the Second Empire is closely connected with the rise of Liberalism and its offshoot, Socialism, as well as with the replacement of the aristocracy with a new ruling class consisting of left-wing financial and industrial interests. In addition, new links were forged with France, with which these interests were connected by a common Liberal ideology and, in particular, with America with which they had economic links.

In Britain, these interests aimed to undermine the authority of the Crown and aristocracy (the big landowners) in order to take control of trade and the economy. Thus, by 1850, the Empire had come to be largely run by “unseen committee men” (Passmore Edwards) working from behind the scenes to push the system in a Liberal, i.e., left-wing direction. 

This behind-the-scenes committee work was instigated by prominent Liberals like Richard Cobden, a textile magnate with railway interests in America and his collaborator John Passmore Edwards, a newspaper owner. These Liberal elements were also active internationally through organisations like the Anglo-American Peace Society which aimed to create a United States of Europe and unite the British Empire with America under the guise of “world peace,” “free trade” and “universal brotherhood.” 

At the apex of this unofficial power structure (or empire within empire) were power-obsessed industrialists like Andrew Carnegie, a steel tycoon and radical journalist who wanted to abolish the Royal Family and the House of Lords.

A special place within this elite was held by bankers and financiers like the less radical but still left-wing Rothschild family. Their German-born ancestor Mayer Amschel (1743-1812) had already been one of the most influential businessmen of all times (ranked 7th in the world by Forbes).

By the late 1800s, leading politicians like Lord Rosebery, Lord Randolph Churchill (Winston Churchill’s father) and Arthur (later Lord) Balfour were frequent guests at the Rothschild country houses where many of the most important political decisions were taken (Ferguson, 2000, vol. 2, p. 319). 

The discovery of diamonds and gold in South Africa greatly increased the wealth and power of these unofficial elites. The Rothschilds became involved – as friends and financiers – with a new group of mining magnates, Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Beit, Julius Wernher, among them. Their combined wealth and influence made these elements powerful enough to virtually take over the Empire.

In 1891, Natty Rothschild, Rhodes and their collaborators formed a secret association called “the Society of the Elect,” later known as the Milner Group, for the purpose of taking over the Empire and creating a world government controlled by themselves (Quigley, pp. 3, 34 ff.).

As part of this plan, the Milner Group developed closer links with its American Wall Street associates – the so-called Eastern Establishment consisting of J. P. Morgan, the Rockefellers and collaborators – and set up a number of organisations to further Anglo-American relations, including military co-operation. Chief among these were the Anglo-American League and the Pilgrims Society.  

Third British Empire (1910 – 1945)

At this point, the Milner Group (so called after its leader Lord Alfred Milner, an employee of the Rothschilds at their mining company Rio Tinto) virtually ran the Empire and was responsible for re-organising it into a Commonwealth of Nations, creating thereby the Third British Empire.

By 1910, most colonies had become Dominions. As part of the Commonwealth they were to become fully independent and “equal,” yet acting in close co-operation with each other and with Britain at the centre of this new imperial organisation.

Co-ordination of policy between London and the rest of the Empire was ensured through the Milner Group’s imperial conferences and foreign relation institutes operating in close collaboration with the London Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), while close contact with America was maintained through RIIA’s sister organisation, the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Anglo-American League and the Pilgrims Society, which also had branches in London and New York.

Working in parallel with the Milner Group was the Fabian Society, a political association founded in 1884 and – like the Milner Group – aiming to establish a Socialist world order, whose leaders were friends and collaborators of leading Milnerites like Natty Rothschild, Rosebery, Balfour and Lord Haldane.

The Fabian leadership was in constant contact with the Milner Group through the Coefficients dining club and other informal meetings and the two groups were in full agreement on international plans such as the division of the world into four or five economic blocs, the placement of colonies under an international authority and the creation of an international government consisting of “experts” of the Milner-Fabian sort. The Fabians also worked in close collaboration with the Milner Group in creating the League of Nations and associated organisations like RIIA and the CFR.

While the Milner Group was building the power structure for the new world order, the Fabian Society was mainly working to establish Socialism in Britain, America and elsewhere. Like the Milner Group, the Society set up a worldwide network oforganisations to further its ends (Ratiu, 2012).

Moreover, the Fabian Society’s activities were financially supported by the Milner Group and associates. For example, the London School of Economics (LSE), a university created to further the Society’s agenda and promote Socialism, was funded by the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, while Lord Rosebery and Natty Rothschild were among its early presidents.

Unsurprisingly, during this period the British Empire (and the world) came to be more and more dominated by the financial interests represented by the Milner Group and its Eastern Establishment associates, who together formed what Carroll Quigley and other historians have called “the Anglo-American Establishment.”

Among financial institutions most closely associated with the Anglo-American Establishment (whose members often served as directors, governors and chairmen of such institutions) were: Lazard Brothers, N. M. Rothschild & Sons, the Bank of England, J. P. Morgan & Co. and the Rockefellers’ National City Bank.

Already in the second half of the 19th century, Britain’s financial institutions had become “the world’s banker.” By the early 1910s, they accounted for 44 per cent of the world’s foreign investment (Pollard, 1985).

To further monopolise and centralise the world’s finances, these interests and their American associates launched various projects such as:

·           The US Federal Reserve System (1913)

·           The American International Corporation (1915)

·           A Gold Reserve Bank of the United States of Europe (1921)

·           The Bank for International Settlements (1930)

In addition to its drive for control of the world’s finances, the Anglo-American Establishment aimed to monopolise resources such as gold, steel and oil, that were already largely controlled by itself. For example, the J P Morgan-controlled Anglo American Corporation and associated outfits controlled South Africa’s gold production – which alone amounted to half of the world’s newly mined gold.

Between 1919 and 2004, the gold price itself was fixed daily at the Rothschild HQ in the City of London (Daily Telegraph, 17 Apr. 2004). Oil prices were similarly controlled by Rothschild and Rockefeller interests through operations like Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon.

This policy brought the British Empire into competition and eventually, conflict, with other powers such as Germany. Henry Noel Brailsford, later a prominent member of the Fabian International and Colonial Bureaux, referred to the First World War as “the War of Steel and Gold” (Brailsford, 1914).

Indeed, it was openly admitted by leading politicians of the time, including Milner Group leaders themselves, that both wars were a struggle between countries with resources, like Britain, America and France, and countries without resources, like Germany, Italy and Japan (Curtis, p. 192). Needless to say, the only reason some countries had no resources was because they had been prevented from acquiring any by those who had monopolised them.

Thus, another key feature of the Third British Empire was the two World Wars of 1914-19 and 1939-45.

Fourth British Empire (1945 – present)

The Fourth British Empire was created in the wake of the Second World War. Like its predecessor, it was a creation of the Anglo-American Establishment and it entailed not only a re-organisation of the Empire but a re-organisation of the whole world into what has been called the “New World Order” or short, “NWO.”

The Anglo-American Establishment’s commitment to the NWO is evident from public statements by front organisations like the British Labour Party which in its 1939 annual report declared that:

“The Labour Party will not abandon, now or ever, the vision of a New World Order”

This New World Order, of course, is a Socialist order run by a Socialist world government which is in turn controlled by the financial interests of the Anglo-American Establishment and their associates.

The official core of the Third British Empire and its world order was the League of Nations. Similarly, the Fourth Empire revolves around the League’s successor, the United Nations (established in 1945).

That the United Nations was a creation of the Anglo-American Establishment – the driving force behind the Fourth Empire – is evident from the over forty members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), along with Assistant Secretary of State Nelson Rockefeller, who were present at the San Francisco Conference which wrote the UN Charter, while the preamble to the Charter was written by none other that leading Milnerite and Fourth Empire official, General Jan Smuts.

That the United Nations is intended to be a world government is clear from the organisations associated with it, for example: 

The World Bank (WB)

The International Monetary Fund (IMF)

The World Court a.k.a. International Court of Justice (ICJ)

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)

The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)

The World Trade Organisation (WTO)

The Commission on Global Governance (CGG)

The European Union (EU), etc.

Also beyond dispute must be that the United Nations and its New World Order are motivated by economic (i.e., financial) interests as demonstrated by official statements like the Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order (Resolution A/RES/S6/3201, 1 May 1974):

“We, the members of the United Nations … solemnly proclaim our united determination to work urgently for the Establishment of a New International Economic Order”

While organisations like the UN are the official organs of the Fourth Empire and its NWO, there is an extensive network of semi-official and unofficial organs operating in close collaboration with the official ones. These include:

Socialist International

Bilderberg Group

Economic and Social Research Council

Trilateral Commission

Atlantic Institute for International Affairs

Atlantic Council

Transatlantic Business Council

Policy Network

Common Purpose

World Economic Forum

United Nations Foundation

European Council on Foreign Relations

Institute for War & Peace Reporting

Club of Rome

World Council of Churches

Oxfam

African Union

African Economic Community

Africa Governance Initiative

Mediterranean Union a.k.a. Union for the Mediterranean.

These organisations and institutions may be classified into three broad categories according to the emphasis of their activities: (1) Atlanticist, working for greater financial, economic and political union between Europe and America; (2) internationalist, working for closer union between all countries with a view to establishing world government; and (3) Socialist, working to establish Socialism nationally and internationally. Regardless of the category they belong to, they all work for the same common goal which is the establishment of a Socialist World State.     

Needless to say, these organisations and institutions, which were created during the Fourth Empire, operate in unison – and often in collaboration – with those established earlier, towards the end of the second and beginning of the third empires, such as the Fabian Society, the Pilgrims Society, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), etc.

The Fourth Empire: British or American?

Economic, military and political superiority has made America the dominant element in the New World Order. This has led some historians to describe the new international power structure as an “American Empire” (Ferguson, 2003, pp. 377-81).

However, some important facts must be taken into consideration, for example, that an American Empire would be impossible without British collaboration; that the City of London remains a powerful financial centre; and that the organs of this empire – including key financial institutions like Lazard, Goldman Sachs and J P Morgan – have Britons on their boards.

Moreover, it is clear from the network of organisations on which it is built, that the Fourth Empire is an Anglo-American entity. In fact, America and the whole New World Order itself, follows a general British, Milner-Fabian pattern. Equally correct, therefore, would be to speak of a Milner-Fabian, Atlantic or Rothschild-Rockefeller Empire, depending on whether the emphasis is political, geographic or financial.

Key features of the Fourth Empire

Some of the most notable features of the Fourth Empire are:

·        It is deliberately less visible than its predecessors, so much so, that outsiders, or the uninitiated, may be totally unaware of its existence. Indeed, nothing would be known about it, were it not for the writings of its architects like Harry Hodson, former editor of the Milner Group’s Round Table, who later served as director of the Information Ministry’s Empire Division.

·        It is no longer British but international with a dominant Anglo-American core and, increasingly, Middle Eastern, Asian and African participation. This tendency towards internationalisation has its roots in the fact that many of the leading elements behind the Third Empire – Alfred Milner, Alfred Beit, the Rothschilds, the Barings, the Astors – were of foreign extraction and represented international rather than British interests.

What becomes clear is that we are dealing with a systematic foreign take-over of the Empire and of Britain itself. This is the true explanation for the increasingly anti-national behaviour of successive British (and American) governments from the early 1900s to the present.

·        It no longer revolves around defined territories and governments, but around control of resources, finances and international relations through unofficial networks of international organisations and institutions like the ones listed above.

·        It is based on a Socialist-dominated political model based on growing centralisation and globalisation of financial, economic and political power.

·        It is becoming more and more like a republic, with Prime Ministers playing an increasingly presidential role, while the Royal Family has become a puppet of the financial interests pulling the strings from behind the scenes. As a result, it is increasingly being used by them to publicly promote their agendas such as Islamisation and African causes, while at the same time “popularising,” that is, abolishing by stealth, the Monarchy itself.

·        The media, entertainment and advertising industries, as well as official sports events (the Olympics, football championships, etc.) are almost exclusively used for the purposes of the Empire.

·        There is growing involvement by the secret services in building, expanding and upholding the Empire’s power structure.

·        While during previous British Empires the brunt of British imperialism was borne by other nations – notably Ireland, India, China, Germany, etc. – as the NWO noose is tightening, the current Empire has brought growing suffering to the British people themselves who are in the process of losing their territory, culture, ethnic identity and even their right to live.

·        Mass immigration is believed to make the Empire militarily, economically and socially “stronger” and “better” and is promoted through organisations like the UN and its Forum for Migration and Development (UNFMD). From the point of view of the nations concerned, however, mass immigration amounts to population replacement or ethnic cleansing.

·        Multiculturalism or the imposition of cultural diversity at the expense of indigenous British culture is likewise said to make Britain “stronger” and “better” and is being enforced through UN agencies like ECOSOC and the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), as well as through various regional and national organisations.

·        Islamisation (also Islamification) is the systematic promotion of Muslims, their religion and their culture in the West through international, regional and national organisations, such as ECOSOC, the Anna Lindh Foundation for Dialogue between Cultures (ALF), the Alliance of Civilisations (AoC), universities like the London School of Economics (LSE), etc.

·        Focus on Africa. The discovery of diamonds and gold in South Africa in the late 1800s had already made the African Continent a key source of income for the Second and Third Empires’ invisible rulers (the Milner Group).

Africa’s paramount importance to the Empire is evident from the fact that the Empire’s African interests had already come to be known as “the Fourth British Empire” in the 1930s (Ensor, 1936, p. xxii). Naturally, Africa remains a central concern of the Empire, indeed, it is the Fourth Empire’s defining element.

In 1947, the Colonial Office described Africa as “the only continental space from which we can still hope to draw reserves of economic and military strength” (Callaghan, p. 174). The “development” of Africa, that is, its opening to exploitation by international money interests, was inserted into the 1950 Schuman Plan – which provided the basis for the European Coal and Steel Community (later European Union) – by Rene Mayer, a cousin of the French Rothschilds and former manager of their business empire (Monnet, p. 300).

Key projects motivated by the Fourth Empire’s African interests include the Organisation of African Unity (later African Union), the African Economic Community and, disturbingly, the plan to unite Europe with Africa. The latter was already promoted by the Anglo-American Establishment in the 1960s and a “Euro-African axis” is currently being constructed around the Mediterranean Union/Union for the Mediterranean (MU/UfM), a Rothschild-Rockefeller project aiming to bring about economic, political and cultural union between the European Union and North Africa (Ratiu, p. 447).

The Fourth Empire’s development of Africa and associated foreign aid programmeshave resulted in unprecedented growth in Africa’s population and millions of Africans are expected to migrate to Europe in search of employment (Sutherland, p. 8). While this provides Europe’s ruling financial interests with cheap labour, it also contributes to the population replacement (or ethnic cleansing) already taking place in many European countries, including Britain.        

It becomes clear from the above facts that state-imposed mass immigration, multiculturalism and Islamisation, along with other negative and destructive developments characteristic of the Fourth Empire are driven by the ever-growing dependence of the international money power on resources extracted from foreign territories like Africa and the Middle East. Such developments show that the ruling elites in Britain and other Western countries have become the enemies of the nations they have brought under their control. They are the enemy within that needs to be eliminated if any positive changes are to be made to the current situation.

Imperial propaganda, manipulation and mass control

The Fourth Empire is aware of potential opposition to its authority on the part of the nations it has subjugated, especially the British and American people. Therefore, it has sought to deflect attention from itself by creating artificial and non-existing enemies. The following are a few examples.

The “Fourth Reich.” In the 1940s, while the Fourth Empire itself was spreading its tentacles across the globe, its architects came up with the clever device of raising the alarm over an alleged “Fourth Reich” (German Fourth Empire) in South America. Although the story was revived by the media and the intelligence services in the 60s and 90s, it was, of course, totally unfounded and turned out to have originated with the Establishment mouthpiece Daily Express (Dorril, pp. 96-7).

The Cold War. The “Cold War” was a period of tension between the Anglo-American Empire and its Russian Communist (Soviet) counterpart. It lasted for nearly half a century following World War II, it saw an enormous input of resources into an unprecedented military and intelligence build-up and, like similar projects of the Anglo-American Establishment, it was a scam.

To be sure, the danger of the spread of Russian Communism was very real, but the Soviet Union never really had the resources to conduct a protracted military campaign against the West. The real danger was that Britain’s own Stalinist LabourParty was in the process of infiltrating and taking over the country by stealth in line with the designs of its Fabian masterminds.

Indeed, there was increased contact between the Fabian Society and the Labour Party on one hand, and the Soviet regime on the other hand, during this period. Thus, the Cold War only served as a smokescreen for Labour’s systematic conversion of British society to Socialism (which mirrored similar activities of the Democratic Party in the USA) while being bankrolled by the very same financial interests who claimed to be fighting Communism.

Anti-racism. To deflect attention from its secret designs to change the racial, social and cultural make-up of the country through the deliberate import of millions of immigrants, the Establishment shifted the blame to its critics, accusing them of “racism” and branding them “fascists” and “Nazis,” thereby suppressing legitimate opposition and dissent.

Foreign aid. In suppressing opposition to its policies of mass immigration, the Establishment has successfully turned British people against themselves, making them uncritically accept the official policy of raising the interests of immigrants and foreigners in general, and those from the Third World in particular, above those of indigenous Britons. The only purpose of the indigenous British population seems now to be to provide the Third World – from where the Empire extracts its wealth and power – with more and more financial and other forms of aid, while welcoming millions of uninvited strangers and facilitating their take-over of the country at the expense of indigenous Britons.

The “War on Terror. The war on Islamic terrorism is another Fourth Empire project that faithfully follows the Cold War pattern. In the same way as the Cold War claimed to fight Communism while promoting Socialism as a “moderate” form of Communism, the war on Islamic terrorism is a sham that promotes “moderate” Islam as an “antidote” to its more radical manifestations, in effect leading to the gradual Islamisation of Western society.  

The above examples clearly illustrate an established pattern of diversion, misdirection and deception by which Britain’s secret government deflects attention from its own actions in order to protect itself and the interests behind it. However, while such tactics are to be expected from the Establishment, it is disturbing to find similar behaviour even among the Establishment’s self-declared opponents. 

UK Independence Party (UKIP) leader Nigel Farage has correctly identified Britain’s three main political parties as “social democratic” (BBC News, 7 Oct. 2006). But in that case, his priority should be not leaving the EU, but fighting the creeping Socialism that is stifling the country. As a former employee of Rothschild-associated banks like Natexis (currently Natixis), Mr Farage ought to know who the string-pullers behind Socialism are. After all, the Conservatives’ long-time chief policy adviser, Oliver Letwin, is not only a Rothschild director but also a former member of the Fabian Society. 

Moreover, UKIP has shown itself to be less reliable on issues like immigration than some of its supporters are willing to admit. Its 2010 manifesto pledged to introduce “a 5-year freeze on all settled immigration” (UKIP London News, issue 8, 2010). By 2013, it had reviewed its policy to allow 50,000 (or more) in, which happened to match very closely the target of the “social democratic” Conservatives …

Meanwhile, while politicians of all denominations are busy changing their policies many times over to suit themselves (and the money interests behind them), the Empire’s evil designs are proceeding according to plan. The only realistic remedy, therefore, is to tear the veil of Establishment propaganda, disinformation and lies, look at the facts as presented by objective observers and supported by verifiable evidence, and then put up organised resistance to a system that is as thoroughly undemocratic as it is dysfunctional and corrupt. In other words, put democracy and sanity back into the system before it is too late.

BBC News, “UKIP ‘voice of British democracy’”, 7 Oct. 2006.

Brailsford, Henry Noel, The War of Steel and Gold: A Study of the Armed Peace, London, 1914.

Callaghan, John, The Labour Party and Foreign Policy: A History, Abingdon, Oxon, 2007.

Curtis, Lionel, World War, Its Cause and Cure, London and New York, NY, 1945.

Daily Telegraph, “Rothschild’s farewell to a golden age,” 17 Apr. 2004.

Darwin, John, The Empire Project: The Rise and Fall of the British World-System, 1830-1970, Cambridge, 2009. 

Dorril, Stephen, MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations, London, 2001.

Ensor, R. C. K., England 1870 -1914, Oxford, 1936.

Ferguson, Niall, The House of Rothschild, 2 vols., New York, NY, 2000.

Ferguson, Niall, Empire: How Britain made the modern world, London, 2003, Penguin Books special edition London 2012.

Hodson, Henry V., Twentieth-Century Empire, London, 1948.

Monnet, Jean, Memoirs, London, 1978.

Passmore Edwards, John, A Few Footprints: The Autobiography of John PassmoreEdwards, 1905.

Pollard, Sidney, “Capital Exports, 1870-1914: Harmful or Beneficial?,” Economic History Review, 2nd ser. 38/4, 1985, pp. 491 f.

Quigley, Carroll, The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden, San Pedro, CA, 1981.

Ratiu, Ioan, The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy: How an international elite is taking over and destroying Europe, America and the World, Richmond, 2012.

Sutherland, Peter, “A Constructive Attitude to Migration is a Moral Issue,” Address to the International Eucharistic Congress, Dublin, 15 June 2012.

The truth about the European Union (and it is not what you think, or have been taught, expand your thinking)

The truth about the European Union

by Cassivellaunus, 5 May 2013

The European Union (EU) is one of the most controversial supranational entities in modern history. While some have hailed it as an instrument for “peace,” “prosperity” and “progress,” a growing number of critics describe it as an “undemocratic,” “illegal” and even “criminal” organisation, and as “a monster that regulates everything” (Craig & Elliott).

The EU: its origins and history

To better understand the true nature and purpose of the European Union, it is well to look at its origins and history and, in particular, at who created it and why. 

The idea of a United States of Europe originated in liberal (i.e., left-wing) capitalist circles, notably those around Richard Cobden (1804-1865). Cobden was a textile manufacturer who held substantial railway interests in America, as well as a leader of the so-called “Manchester School,” a Liberal movement advocating “free trade” and “international peace.”

Cobden was also a founder of the Anglo-American Peace Society which campaigned for a United States of Europe (Richard & Burritt, p. 11) that was to be merged with America. Thus, left-wing Anglo-American industrial interests can be identified as the original driving force behind the European project.

John Passmore Edwards, an adherent of the Manchester School and Cobden’s assistant in the Peace Society, became a newspaper magnate and a financial supporter of the Fabian Society – which was in close touch with Manchester School representatives like Cobden Club secretary Harold Cox. 

The United States of Europe, unsurprisingly, soon became official policy of the Independent Labour Party (ILP), a front organisation of the Fabian Society, and was actively promoted by leading Fabians during and after World War I (see The FabianSociety: the masters of subversion unmasked).

Operating in parallel with the Fabian Society was the Milner Group, an association of left-wing bankers, financiers and political leaders revolving around Rhodes-Rothschild interests and represented by public figures like Lord Alfred Milner, an employee of the Rothschilds.

The Milner Group was in turn allied with associated interests on America’s East Coast, known as the Eastern Establishment and revolving around Wall Street interests like J P Morgan and the Rockefellers. This Milner-Eastern Establishment combine is what historians like Carroll Quigley have called the “Anglo-American Establishment” (Quigley, 1981).

The Anglo-American Establishment consisted of leading international financiers and their political collaborators in Britain, Europe and America, and aimed to re-organise the world’s financial and economic structure, as evident, for example, from their call for an international economic conference for that purpose (“Powers To Confer On World Finance,” NYT, 15 Jan. 1920).

More specifically, the designs of the Anglo-American Establishment – which it shared with its collaborators in the Fabian Society – entailed the division of the world into four or five economic blocs dominated by an Anglo-American alliance and controlled by international organisations run by economic “experts” churned out by the academic institutions (the London School of Economics, Harvard University, etc.) bankrolled by the same financial interests.  

In particular, plans for a “Gold Reserve Bank of the United States of Europe” were presented by Frank Vanderlip of the Rockefeller-controlled National City Bank of New York (“Vanderlip Gives Details Of Plan For World Bank,” NYT, 13 Nov 1921). The Rockefellers were among the main financial supporters of the Fabian Society and its various internationalist projects.

The European Coal and Steel Community

The above plans were briefly interrupted by World War II, only to be resuscitated by the same interests after the war and imposed on Europe through the US Marshall Plan that set the economic and political unification of Europe as a precondition for financial aid to Britain and other European countries.

The US State Department – which was responsible for foreign policy – had been dominated by the Rockefellers’ Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) since the early 1940s when the State Department set up the Advisory Committee on PostwarForeign Policy whose vice-chairman was CFR member and leading new world order advocate Sumner Welles (Smoot, p. 8).

The Marshall Plan was devised, promoted and implemented by elements linked to Rockefeller interests operating within the US State Department in collaboration with Socialist regimes such as that of British Prime Minister Clement Attlee. Attlee’s Fabian Socialist Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin chaired the 13 July 1947 conference that established the Committee for European Economic Co-operation (CEEC), later called Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC).

Marshall Aid funds were funnelled through the CFR-controlled European Cooperation Administration (ECA) and the American Committee for a United Europe (ACUE) to various European organisations, the vast majority of which were founded and/or run by Fabian Socialists and fellow left-wingers like Jean Monnet, Paul-Henri Spaak, Joseph Retinger, Hugh Gaitskell, Denis Healey and others. (Aldrich, 1995; Dorril, 2001). 

A leading element in the Anglo-American campaign for a United Europe was the European Movement (EM), an organisation founded by none other than former Prime Minister Winston Churchill himself (Dorril, p. 460). A key figure in the European project, Churchill had long advocated a United Europe, as had his crony Arthur Salter, a former member of the Fabian Society.

It is often forgotten that Churchill had been a dedicated Liberal and a close collaborator of the Fabian leadership in the early 1900s (Webb, pp. 411, 416-7). Moreover, he was very close to the Milner Group, being related to diamond tycoon and Milner Group financier Abe Bailey (whose son John Milner was married to Churchill’s daughter Diana). Churchill was also related, through his American mother, to Wall Street financier Leonard Walter Jerome, the “King of Wall Street,” who was a close associate of Vanderbilt-Morgan interests – the same interests that created the Council on Foreign Relations (Ratiu, pp. 132-4, 237).

It was pressure from the above financial interests and their political collaborators which ensured that the European project was launched with the 1950 SchumanDeclaration and took shape as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) through the 1951 Treaty of Paris.

Once the European plan had been made official, it was the same interests that pushed for its implementation. Here again, Churchill’s European Movement, in collaboration with the Bilderberg Group and the Action Committee for a United States of Europe (ACUSE) played a leading role (Aldrich, p. 216).

The European Union, a “German creation”?

Like many other nefarious activities of the Anglo-American Establishment, the European project was shrouded in secrecy, propaganda and disinformation, which is why the secret services were heavily involved in funding, promoting and implementing the scheme (Aldrich; Dorril; Evans-Pritchard).

A key element in this was the theory that the new United Europe was a “Franco-German” or “German” creation. This theory, incredibly, persists to this day – perpetuated by the likes of James Goldsmith, the late founder of the (now defunct) Referendum Party.

With the contempt for historical fact characteristic of his ilk, Goldsmith (a long-time Rothschild associate) brazenly claimed that:

“As we know, the construction of the European Union was designed by Germany assisted by the elite civil servants of France. It draws its bulk from Germany’s constitutional heritage … Hegel, the philosophical father of the German constitutional tradition, believed in the State and despised the people …” (Goldsmith, 1996).

The truth is that Hegel’s State was a Christian monarchy, a form of government rooted in centuries-old tradition and supported by biblical authority. How Goldsmith came to see a connection with the anti-Christian European Union is a mystery. But it shows what can happen when bankers dabble in philosophy.

At any rate, Goldsmith’s anti-Hegelian (and anti-German) rant is part of the mythological repertoire by which the Establishment in this country keeps the masses ignorant, confused, divided and easy to control.

The media, in particular, have played a leading role in this. Papers like the Daily Mail have a long history of spreading propaganda, disinformation and lies on behalf of the Establishment. For example, in November 2011 the Mail chose to parrot the “prophetic” words of Nicholas Ridley (Margaret Thatcher’s Trade Secretary) to the effect that the proposed European Economic and Monetary Union was “a German racket designed to take over the whole of Europe” (Moncrieff, 2011).

Typically, the Mail failed to produce any evidence to back up its claim. Apparently, Ridley’s (and the Mail’s) prophetic utterances must be accepted as fact. Unfortunately, the Mail had earlier told us that most Germans wanted their old currency, the Deutschmark, back (30 June 2010). If the euro was a “German racket to take over Europe,” why would the Germans want their currency back?

As there was neither rhyme nor reason to the story, we did our own research only to find that according to the Mail itself, Germany had been “strong-armed by France into swapping the Deutschmark for the euro”! (Hall, 2010). Indeed, as France’s Socialist President François Mitterrand himself admitted in the Council of Ministers, he had bluntly told German Chancellor Helmut Kohl that if he wanted the re-unification of Germany he had to “show that he continued to believe in Europe” and back monetary union (Stirn, p. 184). So much for “German racket.”

Monetary union turns out to have been a French agenda from the time of President Georges Pompidou and was backed by leading Britons from Edward Heath to Roy Jenkins. Moreover, Pompidou had been the manager of the French Rothschilds’ business empire. Heath appointed Victor Rothschild as head of the Cabinet Office think-tank Central Policy Review Staff (CPRS) and engineered Britain’s entry to the Common Market with the assistance of Pompidou. And Jenkins was a founding member of the Rockefellers’ Trilateral Commission, in which he was later joined by Heath.

It follows that blaming the Germans can serve no other purpose than to cover up the truth about the interests behind the European project. Further investigation shows this to be something of a quasi-religious ritual with sections of the British press going back to the early 1900s. Already in 1916-1917, the Mail and the Times along with fellow “Conservative” papers like the Daily Telegraph and the Morning Postdenounced the proposed League of Nations as a “cloak to conceal German designs” (Winkler, pp. 119-20).

The League was, in fact, an Anglo-American design, the Milner Group, the FabianSociety and their American collaborators being the masterminds behind it. Churchill himself described it as the “nucleus of an alliance against Germany” (Salter, p. 102) and the press knew full well what the score was. As early as 1906, Lord Northcliffe(Alfred Harmsworth), the owner of the Mail and the Times, and his friend Field Marshall Lord Roberts, president of the Milner Group-associated Anglo-American Pilgrims Society, had launched a systematic anti-German propaganda campaign by publishing false stories of an imminent “German invasion” of Britain (Ferguson, 2003, p. 292; Clarke, p. 47).

The Mail’s owners have maintained close links to the same interests ever since, indeed, they are related to them: the 3rd Earl of Cromer (Rowland Baring of the Baring banking family) was the husband of Esmé Harmsworth, sister of Lord Rothermere (father of the present Lord Rothermere and Mail proprietor). Cromer was an executive director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and International Finance Corporation (IFC), as well as governor of the Bank of England, governor of the Atlantic Institute for International Affairs (AIIA), member of the Pilgrims Society executive committee and member of the Rockefellers’ Trilateral Commission.

In other words, Cromer was a leading member of the same Anglo-American Establishment that was behind the European project. It was Trilateral Commission member and leading Europeanist Roy Jenkins who, as President of the European Commission in the late 1970s, launched the European Monetary System (EMS) which was the first step towards monetary union (Healey, p. 438).

There is no evidence whatsoever that Germany was the initiator in any of the above projects. In contrast, the central role of Anglo-American, Atlanticist interests is confirmed by the fact that in 1981, Jenkins’ European Commission proposed closer co-operation between EMS central banks and the US Federal Reserve System. Clearly, the whole scheme points not to Bonn or Berlin but to London, Washington and Wall Street.

A direct link between these interests and the Mail is provided by Cromer himself, who was a director of the Daily Mail & General Trust (DMGT) – the company that owns the Mail – as well as a close friend of monetary union advocate and fellow Trilateralist Edward Heath. DMGT is also connected with the Barings through DMGT deputy chairman Vivian Baring; Baring Brothers and its successor, ING Barings, has been adviser to DMGT, etc.

In addition to its close Baring connections, the Harmsworths’ DMGT also interlocks with pro-EU Rothschild-Milner Group institutions like Lazard and Sofina SA: long-time Lazard chairman and Sofina director David Verey is a non-executive director of DMGT.

The Mail’s Lazard connections are of particular interest in light of Lazard’s long-standing pro-European stance. In fact, Jean Monnet, one of the European Union’s chief architects, appears to have been something of a Lazard front. Not only was he provided with a substantial loan by the bank but Lazard Brothers partners Lord Brand and Lord Kindersley (both leading Milner Group members) were old friends of his.

Brand was also a director of The Times which was owned by the Astors to whom he was related and who were key players behind the Pilgrims Society and the European Union movement. The Times and the Economist (whose editor Geoffrey Crowtherwas another old friend of Monnet) were among the British papers that had already promoted European union in the late 1940s.

In May 1950 Monnet called on Brand, Kindersley and Crowther in London to discuss his Schuman Plan before meeting political leaders (Monnet, p. 306). Both the Times and the Economist backed Monnet’s Plan as well as British membership, with the Times calling for Britain’s “closest possible association with the project” (9 Jun. 1950). Anthony Eden, Conservative spokesman on foreign affairs, and Lord Layton (a leading Milnerite) on behalf of the Liberals, all urged the Government to join. But it’s now all supposed to have been a racket imposed on Britain by Germany! 

And so, history repeats itself thanks to the British establishment and its instruments of black propaganda, manipulation and mass control. We have seen that far from being “designed by Germany,” the United States of Europe had been the brainchild of Anglo-American interests who, we may add, believed in the State (controlled by themselves) and despised the people at least as much as Hegel did.

The fact is that the Benelux Customs Union between Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, which formed the core of the Coal and Steel Community (later Common Market), was created by the London-based governments-in-exile of the respective countries through the 1944 London Customs Convention.

Likewise, Franco-German economic co-operation can be traced back to London. In September 1946, Churchill called for the creation of a “United States of Europe from the Atlantic to the Black Sea,” adding that the first step to European union must be a partnership between France and Germany:

“I am now going to say something that will astonish you. The first step in the re-creation of the European family must be a partnership between France and Germany … “

In fact, Churchill’s idea of Franco-German co-operation went back to the early 1930s if not earlier (Biddeleux & Taylor, pp. 37-38).

Moreover, as correctly pointed out by Arthur Salter later that year in the House of Commons, Churchill’s plan for Franco-German co-operation as a basis for a United States of Europe depended on the British Zone of Allied-occupied Germany which contained the centre of German industry (House of Commons Debates, “Debate on the Address,” 14 Nov. 1946, column 321).

In 1951, Foreign Secretary Eden openly admitted in the Commons that:

“… through these years gradually we have drawn Germany – this greater part of Germany [West Germany] – into the Western orbit. We have drawn this part of Germany into the Schuman Plan [that established the European Coal and Steel Community], and into every sort and kind of contact – political, economic, literary, cultural of every sort and kind.” (House of Commons Debates, “Foreign Affairs,” 20 Nov. 1951, column 346).

Germany, of course, was under Allied military occupation until 1955 and in no position to create international entities like the Coal and Steel Community that involved France, Italy and the Benelux countries. In contrast, Britain still had its web of international connections and – as revealed by Harry Hodson of the Ministry of Information (and former editor of the Milner Group’s Round Table) – its ruling elites were busy building a new, secret “Fourth British Empire” that was to be as grand as its predecessors, only less visible to outsiders (Hodson, 160-1).

The Milner Group, the leading element in Britain’s invisible government, saw the British Empire as assuming new shapes while adapting to changing circumstances successively marked by the American Revolution, self-government in the Colonies and the Second World War. The Fourth British Empire came into being with the post-war Anglo-American New World Order. 

In line with this new order, German economy was to be “geared to a world system” dominated by Anglo-American interests (Ferguson, 2004, p. 77). Accordingly, West Germany’s constitution was drafted in 1949 by US Military Governor General Lucius D. Clay and contained a clause (Art. 24) providing for the transfer of sovereign powers to international institutions (like the European Coal and Steel Community and the Council of Europe) (RIIA, 1956). On the whole, probably not something Hegel would have endorsed.

The West German government itself was created by the same US military (Ferguson, 2004, p. 76) which had close links to Anglo-American financial interests. For example, General Clay was a close friend of Goldman Sachs boss Sidney Weinberg and, on retiring in 1950, became a leading member of the powerful US Business Advisory Council (BAC), an organisation run by Weinberg and with close links to the Rockefellers’ CFR of which Clay himself later became a director (Smoot, p.70).

Clay’s successor as Governor or Commissioner for Occupied Germany until 1955 was John J. McCloy who was a partner at the Rockefellers’ New York law firm Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy; member of the Rockefeller-dominated 1945 San Francisco Conference which drafted the UN Charter; chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation; chairman of the Rockefeller-controlled Chase Manhattan Bank; chairman of the Rockefeller-controlled CFR (from 1953); and former president of the CFR-controlled World Bank (Ratiu, p. 231).

As to West German leaders, Chancellor Conrad Adenauer had already been a puppet of the Anglo-American occupation forces after World War I and was now hand-picked again by McCloy (Graham Jr., p. 421). Adenauer’s successor Willy Brandt had been co-founder and leader of the International Bureau of Revolutionary Youth Organisations, the youth wing of the International Revolutionary Marxist Centre, a.k.a. London Bureau, controlled by Fenner Brockway of the Fabian Society’s Independent Labour Party. Brandt’s successor Helmut Schmidt was one of the thousands of German prisoners of war (POWs) indoctrinated by Fabians and Milnerites at Wilton Park (a creation of Churchill and Bevin) after the war, etc.

Even worse, at the very time that Germany is supposed to have plotted the European Union, its population was being subjected to systematic starvation, resulting in the death of six million men, women and children (de Zayas, p. 111; Bacque, pp. 119, 204; Dietrich, pp. 107-8, 140-1). Although this was briefly discussed in Parliament at the time (see House of Commons, 14 Nov 1946), there is not one word about it today.

That the above facts, among others, are being denied to the public by politicians and their media collaborators is a shameful blot on the face of British democracy. At any rate, it should be absolutely clear that not only the European Union, but Germany itself – its supposed creator – was a creation of Anglo-American interests. 

US influence is evident even from the original stars-and-stripes design of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) flag. The stripes stand for coal (black) and steel (blue) and the stars for the “United States of Europe”: Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy, France and West Germany.

       JOEngene 1996 en.wikipedia.org      ECSC flag 1958-1972

A “German-dominated” Europe?

The Anglo-American Establishment’s propaganda machine has been spreading another piece of disinformation according to which the European Union was not only “created” but is “dominated” by Germany.

Having seen whose creation the European Union was, we must first treat the question of German domination as a separate issue that is unconnected with the creation of the EU. We must next remember the fact that Germany has Europe’s largest population and strongest economy, in the light of which, expecting Germany not to dominate Europe is as absurd as expecting England not to dominate the British Isles or any of their component parts such as Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

The fact is that Germany dominates Europe not by design but by default, thanks to its central position on the Continent, the size of its population (81 compared to UK’s 62 million) and the strength of its economy. As conceded by the notoriously anti-German Daily Mail, the Germans have worked hard to become Europe’s top dogs and “unlike their neighbours they have managed their finances with scrupulous responsibility” (Sandbrook, 2013). This may be inconvenient to some, but fact it remains. So, what is the problem?

The truth of the matter, as openly admitted by Churchill and many others, is that Britain’s financial and political elites have always objected to any country’s domination of Europe other than Britain itself. And this is for the simple reason that it would interfere with Britain’s own secret designs to dominate the world. After all, it was Britain, not Germany, who until not long ago had a world empire (recent studies show there are only 22 countries in the world that the British have not invaded) and who, as shown above, has since been building a new, unofficial one.

One of the most vocal critics of Germany (and of the EU) is Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP). In one of his trade-mark speeches in the European Parliament in Strasbourg, Mr Farage berates EU leaders Jose Manuel Barroso (European Commission President), Olli Rehn (Economic Affairs Commissioner), Herman Van Rompuy (European Council President) and Jean-Claude Juncker (chairman of the eurozone group of EU countries), for their lack of leadership which has allegedly allowed German Chancellor Angela Merkel to take charge and we are now “living in a German-dominated Europe, something this European Union was supposed to stop.” (Huffington Post, 2011).

Mr Farage’s candid admission that the European Union was supposed to stop German domination ought to draw the objective listener’s attention to the European Union’s true origin and purpose. If the EU was created to suppress Germany, then the idea that the EU is a German creation becomes preposterous.

But is there any truth in the claim that the EU and its member states, including Britain, are dominated by Merkel? Mr Farage tells us that the very same EU leaders he accuses of “lack of leadership” had the Greek Prime Minister (Papandreou) “removed and replaced by a puppet government” and Italian Prime Minister SilvioBerlusconi replaced with Mario Monti, a former EU commissioner and “fellow architect of this disaster.”

Let’s have a closer look at the “EU puppets” who replaced Papandreou and Berlusconi – Lucas Papademos and Mario Monti. What is striking about them is that they have nothing to do with Angela Merkel. In fact, a little research reveals something the otherwise outspoken Mr Farage is oddly silent about: Papademos and Monti are well-known members of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission.

Moreover, as pointed out by James Delingpole of the Daily Telegraph, Papademos, Monti and European Central Bank president Mario Draghi all have Goldman Sachs, the (Rothschild-Rockefeller-associated) US banking giant, as a common denominator(Delingpole, 2011; cf. Foley, 2011). Goldman Sachs International chairman Peter Sutherland is honorary chairman of the Trilateral’s European section. And the declared aim of the Trilateral is to manage (i.e., control) the world economy and shape government policy … 

In addition, it was Papademos (not Germany) who, as head of the Greek Central Bank in the late 1990s devalued the Greek drachma by 14 per cent and engineered Greece’s entry to the eurozone on figures reportedly doctored by Goldman Sachs operatives.

If Papademos & Co are indeed puppets, then they must be the puppets of Rockefeller and his Goldman Sachs associates. And if that is the case, then Europe is notdominated by Germany but by the international financial interests represented by the Trilateral Commission – the same interests that set up the European Union in the first place.

While it may be conceivable, for argument’s sake, for Angela Merkel to “dominate” or “control” individual EU members (or even the EU as a whole) it would be absurd to believe that she controls global giants like Rockefeller and Goldman Sachs. If anything, the reverse is more likely to be the case.  

Indeed, we find that Alexander Dibelius, head of Goldman Sachs’s German and Eastern European operations, has been Angela Merkel’s adviser since the 1990s – before she became Chancellor. The extent of Goldman influence or control over Merkel is evident from the fact that Merkel, supposedly the world’s “most powerful woman,” consulted with Goldman CEO Henry Paulson, Jr., before and after visits to US President George W Bush (Cohan, p. 432).

Finally, Merkel is a member of Atlantic-Brücke (Atlantic Bridge), an organisation set up after the war by Rockefeller interests and their German puppets to remote-control West Germany from across the Atlantic. German-born Rockefeller lieutenant Henry Kissinger is a leading member.

What becomes clear is that Germany, along with its government and constitution, was not only created by Goldman Sachs-Rockefeller interests, but continues to be dominated by them to this day.

The same applies to the European Union itself – as evident from the Goldman Sachs operatives (past or present) holding leading positions from Washington and New York to London, Frankfurt and Athens.

·     USA  – Henry Paulson, CEO, Goldman Sachs (New York): US Treasury Secretary

·     UK – Peter Sutherland, partner and chairman, Goldman Sachs International (London); honorary chairman, Trilateral Commission: head of the UN Forum for Migration and Development; chairman, London School of Economics

·     UK – Gavyn Davies, chief economist and senior partner, Goldman Sachs International (London): former economic policy adviser to Labour PM James Callaghan and husband of Gordon Brown’s adviser Sue Nye

·     UK – Martin Taylor, international adviser, Goldman Sachs International (London); general secretary, Bilderberg Group: chairman, Institute for Public Policy Research Commission on Public Private Partnerships; member, UK Government Independent Commission on Banking

·     Germany – Alexander Dibelius, head, Goldman Sachs Germany and Eastern Europe (Frankfurt): adviser to Angela Merkel since the 1990s

·     Germany – Otmar Issing, senior international adviser, Goldman Sachs: board member, German Bundesbank, European Central Bank; co-architect of the euro; adviser to Angela Merkel

·     France – Antonio Borges, vice-chairman, Goldman Sachs International: head of the International Monetary Fund (Europe) 

·     Italy – Mario Draghi, managing director, Goldman Sachs International: chairman, Financial Stability Forumpresident, European Central Bank

·     Italy – Mario Monti, senior international adviser, Goldman Sachs; chairman, Trilateral Commission (Europe): Prime Minister of Italy; member, AttaliCommission of French economic growth; member, European Council’s Europe 2020-2030 reflection group; founder and honorary chairman, Bruegel – the European economic think-tank whose members include EU governments, corporations like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and UBS and institutions like the Rothschild-associated European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the European Investment Bank (EIB) 

·     Spain – Guillermo de la Dehesa, vice-chairman, Goldman Sachs International: Secretary of State for Economy; chairman, Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) 

·     Belgium – Karel van Miert, adviser, Goldman Sachs; non-executive director, Anglo American (De Beers’ twin company): Vice-Chairman of the European Commission

·     Greece – Lucas Papademos, assistant to Professor Franco Modigliani, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, under whose supervision Mario Draghiobtained his economics degree; member, Trilateral Commission; involved in Goldman attempts to doctor the country’s books: Prime Minister of Greece

·     Greece – Petros Christodoulou, stock exchange trader, Goldman Sachs (London): head of Greece’s Debt Management Agency

Tellingly, although the above list shows heavy involvement by Goldman Sachs International (Goldman’s London-based European HQ), it was not the British press but Marc Roche, London correspondent of French Le Monde, who first blew the whistle on the Goldman racket – which he describes as “the European Sachs Government” (Roche, 2011).

In the US, too, “Government Sachs” has long been a familiar phrase and not without reason, as the Huffington Post explains (Baram, 2009). Not so in Britain where the concept of government by financial interests is anathema to the Establishment’s media stooges. It is not difficult to see why.

In any case, as Goldman Sachs and fellow global giants (J P Morgan, Citi, Barclays, HSBC, etc.) are constantly expanding and drawing closer to each other, and their collective power and influence steadily increase, it ought to be obvious that it is they and not any one politician or government who call the tune.

Who runs the European Union?

To understand who the real power-holders in the European Union are, we must leave all establishment rhetoric and propaganda aside and have a closer look at the facts.

We have already seen that a key architect of the European project was Winston Churchill who had founded the European Movement (originally called United Europe Movement) in 1946. The European Movement’s first presidents were Churchill’s son-in-law Duncan Sandys, followed by the Belgian Paul-Henri Spaak.

Like his father Lord Randolph, Churchill was a close friend and collaborator of the Rothschilds and had a bank account with N M Rothschild & Sons (which indicates a special relationship). As the Churchills were long-standing friends of the London Rothschilds, so the Spaaks were long-standing friends of the Belgian Rothschilds.

Co-architect of the European project Jean Monnet, was an old friend of Lord Kindersley – a Lazard partner and director of the Rothschilds’ Sun Alliance – and had close links to the French-Swiss banking group Edmond de Rothschild whose head Edmond was a member of the Bilderberg steering committee (de Villemarest, vol. 2, pp. 31, 79). Monnet was the founder of the Action Committee for the United States of Europe (ACUSE) which, together with Churchill’s European Movement, was at the forefront of the unionist effort.

Monnet became a top-level unofficial adviser and policy maker for the US Marshall Plan that bankrolled the European project (which was negotiated with the help of Monnet’s friend Lord Brand and launched after consultations with Sandys, Spaakand associates) and was appointed first president of the European Coal and Steel Community’s High Authority.

Similarly, Rene Mayer, a cousin of the French Rothschilds and manager of their business empire, was involved in the writing of the Schuman Plan (Monnet, p. 300) which formed the foundation for the European Coal and Steel Community and was based on blueprints Mayer and Monnet had discussed in the early 1940s (Monnet, pp. 293, 300). Moreover, Mayer was a shareholder in Monnet’s J. G. Monnet & Co. (Duchene, p. 339) and succeeded Monnet as president of the ECSC High Authority.

The Belgian Robert de Rothschild, Spaak’s head of private office, was likewise involved in the European Movement and, together with Mayer and others, in the 1957 Treaty of Rome that established the European Economic Community (EEC) a.k.a. Common Market.

In the early 1950s Rothschild lieutenant Rene Mayer advocated a Channel tunnel to link the Continent with the UK, and the Rothschilds were involved in raising finances for the ECSC, as well as in the Common Market Banking Syndicate and other Europeanist projects like the European Composite Unit (EURCO, a forerunner of the euro) and the 1981 European Channel Tunnel Project.

The European drive towards monetary union itself was started by French President Georges Pompidou – another Rothschild lieutenant and former manager of the French Rothschilds’ business empire – through the 1969 European Summit of The Hague and was implemented through the 1992 Maastricht Treaty engineered by François Mitterrand whose special economic adviser was Rothschild associate Jacques Attali, described by the Financial Times as “the philosopher-king of Mitterrand’s court” (7 Jun. 1982).

Attali is also the founder of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) which co-founded the Rothschilds’ TriGranit Development Corporation, one of Europe’s largest property developers.  

Needless to say, the Rothschilds were in close touch with the Rockefellers and allied financial interests both directly and through semi-secret organisations like the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission of which the Rothschilds and their representatives are leading members.

Moreover, key EU figures from EU President Roy Jenkins (former Fabian Society chairman) to EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson (long-time Fabian activist and close friend of the Rothschilds) have been members of the Trilateral Commission as have many others, e.g., Giscard d’Estaing.

It follows that Rothschild, Rockefeller, Goldman Sachs and associated interests represented by organisations like the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, the Fabian Society, etc., are the real power-holders in the European Union.

The Trilateral, Bilderberg and similar outfits ensure policy co-ordination between the above money interests and the political classes. In addition, there are other groups that enable bankers and industrialists to actively co-operate with EU politicians in joint projects, in effect making EU policy without the knowledge of the public.

A leading role among these groups has been played by the European Enterprise Group (EEG) and the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT). The EEG was founded in 1980 by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), itself a creation of industrial giants like British Petroleum (BP), (Rothschild co-owned) Shell, Fiat and (Rockefeller-controlled) Ford. The CBI’s first director-general was John Davies, vice-chairman and managing director of Shell-Mex and BP (the Shell-BP marketing venture) and a supporter of Britain’s entry to the Common Market. EEG’s express aim was to place individual firms on the policy committees and working groups of the influential Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe (UNICE) (Cowles, M. G., p. 68), thereby becoming directly (and quite undemocratically) involved in EU policy making.

On its part, the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT) was founded by Etienne Davignon, a long-time disciple of Rothschild associate Paul-Henri Spaak(see above), successor to Robert de Rothschild as Spaak’s head of private office, Vice-President of the EEC Commission and later Single Market, Industry and Trade Commissioner, and early advocate of European foreign policy co-operation (see Davignon Report 1970). Apart from ensuring policy co-ordination between the international money power and EEC politicians, ERT was designed to function as a “nerve centre for European integration policy” (Gillingham, p. 238).

As evidence of its closeness to the EU hierarchy, the ERT moved its secretariat to Brussels in 1988 and, from 1990, prominent ERT members have served within UNICE (van Apeldoorn, pp. 199, 202). The ERT continues to be dominated by the Trilateral Commission and associates. For example, the vice-chairman of the ERT from 2006 to 2009 was Trilateral European chairman Peter Sutherland, chairman (and partner) of Goldman Sachs International.

In turn, Goldman Sachs International interlocks with Paris Orléans (the holding company of the Rothschild banking group) whose chairman Sylvain Hefes is a director of Goldmanand the Rothschilds interlock with the Rockefellers, being major shareholders in the latter’s Rockefeller Financial Services.

In the last few decades, the Rothschilds and associated interests like Goldman Sachs and George Soros have been able to considerably expand their power and influence in Europe (and elsewhere) thanks to their role as providers of capital and advisers to governments, particularly in nationalisation and privatisation programmes. A case in point is Germany, where Goldman opened in 1990 to soon become the country’s largest foreign investment bank as well as top government adviser, not least thanks to its involvement in the privatisation of thousands of formerly state-owned enterprises. Goldman’s relationship with Angela Merkel stems from that time.

Leaving nothing to chance, the above interests have constructed an ever-expanding network of organisations aiming to influence EU policy, in particular, in regard to foreign relations, which has always been one of their key concerns – as evident from their creation of outfits like Chatham House (Royal Institute of International Affairs) and its sister organisation, the US Council on Foreign Relations (Hodson, pp. 161, 166; Quigley, pp. 182 ff.).

New additions to this undemocratic web of conspiracy and deception include the Foundation for International Relations and Foreign Dialogue (FRIDE) – which has Goldman vice-chairman de la Dehesa on its research team – and, in particular, the ominously named European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).  

As suggested by its very name, the ECFR is a clone of the Rockefellers’ CFR, while the interests it represents are quickly exposed by even a cursory overview of its membership which includes: Andrew Duff, president of the Union of European Federalists (UEF), Liberal Member of the European Parliament (MEP), leading figure in the drive for merging the presidencies of the European Council and European Commission and CEO of the Rothschild-associated investment bank Piper Jaffray; Rothschild lieutenant George Soros, founder and chairman of the Open Society Foundations (OSF) and CFR member; Soros associates Minna Järvenpää, international advocacy director, OSF and Heather Grabbe, executive director, Open Society Institute (OSI), etc.

While the recent drive to regulate the activities of banking operations has made life harder for some banks, regulation has tended to compel the industry’s top players to expand, in effect encouraging them to stretch their power and influence even further. At the same time, an area where there is little prospect of seeing regulation any time soon is the activities of banking interests via front organisations like the Trilateral Commission, the ERT and the ECFR. 

The above factors (among others) combine to ensure that the power and influence – as well as mutual collaboration – of the likes of Rothschild, Rockefeller and Goldman Sachs will continue to grow in the foreseeable future, making rule by financial interests stark reality.

Moreover, with leading Socialists like Lord Mandelson, Tony Blair and Gerhard Schröder acting as advisers to Lazard, J P Morgan and Rothschild, we can see a convergence of Socialist ideology and concentration of finance that can only lead to a Socialist Europe and, eventually, a Socialist World State.

The European Union and the UK

There is absolutely no doubt that the European Union was intended to function as a superstate; that it is behaving more and more like a dictatorship; and that the UK must distance itself from this diabolical entity. However, what must be equally clear is that the EU’s power over this country is often exaggerated by people who either are ignorant of the true power relations in this country (and this applies to most of us) or have their own agenda.

Let us recall what James Goldsmith, a man with ample experience and knowledge of power – and leading anti-EU activist – said. He said that Britain is stifled by “lack of clear law, magic circles, self-perpetuating oligarchies, interest groups and institutions both inside and outside the City” (Dodsworth, 1984).

In that case, the EU, malignant though it may be, cannot be the root cause of all evil. A more accurate analysis would be that Britain is stifled by magic circles, self-perpetuating oligarchies, etc., from within, and by interest groups, etc., from outside Britain, among which the EU, powerful and influential as it is, is only one element – and not even the most important one.

Take immigration and multiculturalism, two issues that are of particular concern to the British public. Opinion polls show that 71 per cent of Britons believe that there are too many immigrants in the country (Ipsos MORI, 4 Aug. 2011). 

As we know, mass immigration to Britain was made possible by British law, in particular, the British Nationality Act 1948 passed by Clement Attlee’s FabianSocialist administration and subsequently facilitated by further legislation and immigration policies from Fabian Labour governments, especially during the Blair-Brown regime of 1997-2010 (Whitehead, 2009).

The same applies to multiculturalism, or the deliberate and systematic destruction of British culture by British authorities. As we know, its chief architect was Roy Jenkins – like Attlee, Blair and Brown – a leading member of Britain’s very own FabianSociety.

The fact is that both mass immigration and multiculturalism started in the 1950s and 60s, long before Britain’s entry to the European Union in 1973. These developments were not the handiwork of Europe but of the British establishment whose policy of inverted colonialism saw millions of immigrants from the former Colonies now colonising the UK.

If British governments find it difficult to curb immigration, this is not because of British membership of the EU but because of pressure from interest groupsbusiness associations like CBI looking to hire cheap labour, universities like the LSE depending on foreign students for income, a useless legal system, subversive think-tanks like the Fabian Society and the IPPR and pro-immigration government advisory bodies like the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) and the UK Border Agency (UKBA).

These are the “magic circles and interest groups” stifling Britain from within. The last two (MAC and UKBA) were set up by the last Labour regime and from the elements running them (LSE Professor David Metcalf, Dr Martin Ruhs of the Oxford University Migration Observatory, former Independent editor Diane Coyle, etc.) they appear to have been intended as booby traps for the incoming Conservative government and its immigration policies (for MAC and UKBA’s Fabian origins see The Fabian Society).

A case in point is Jordanian “hate preacher” Abu Qatada, whom British authorities have been unable to deport to his country of origin. Not, as it turns out, due to any EU laws but entirely because of our own legal system. As pointed out by several commentators, the French authorities appear to have no problems whatsoever in deporting unwanted foreign nationals from French soil (Johnston, 2013). And this clearly shows where the root problem lies: it is in the British system itself. Nor must we forget the media, secret services and police forces, all of which conspire to keep the establishment in power and the public under control.

Conclusion: let’s fight the demons at home

While withdrawing from the EU is without doubt desirable, it is imperative not to ignore the plethora of systemic defects that are entirely home-grown and very British. Blaming everything on the EU would be as counter-productive as blaming everything on “the Germans.” It could only serve to deflect attention from the true sources of our predicament and push us further into the quagmire.

Indeed, there are good reasons to believe that criticism of the EU may be used as a smokescreen for other things. For example, only 30 per cent of immigrants coming to Britain are from the EU. Leaving the EU would only stop EU immigrants and even that only if and when our own immigration controls work as intended.

The remaining 70 per cent would not be reduced by a British exit. On the contrary, this percentage might actually increase if, as planned by interest groups like Global Britain – the think-tank behind UKIP – we enter into trade and other agreements with America, South Asia, Africa and other areas of international migration.

Goldman Sachs International chairman Peter Sutherland for one, who doubles as head of the UN Migration Forum, expects millions of immigrants from Africa to look for work in Europe, including Britain (Sutherland, 2012). The development of Africa (a continent rich in natural resources from gold and diamonds to oil and gas) is, of course, a key policy of the Fourth British Empire and its associates – which is precisely why it was inserted into the Schuman Plan by Rothschild relative and lieutenant Rene Mayer (Monnet, p. 300).

This also explains the British establishment’s bizarre obsession with Africa – from Oxfam to Tony Blair’s Africa Governance Initiative – and why the immigration debate tends to focus on the EU while ignoring Africa and other non-EU areas making up the bulk of the problem. 

To be sure, the EU is a parasitic body that cruelly enslaves its victims and draws the lifeblood out of them. It would be suicidal for any nation to linger in its embrace – and this applies to Germany as much as it applies to the UK.

But it is important not to forget that the EU is a Socialist organisation, created and controlled by Socialists and their collaborators from inception, and that it has remained dominated by Socialists ever since, from Paul-Henri Spaak to Roy Jenkins and from Javier Solana to Peter Mandelson and Catherine Ashton. Member states like Britain themselves have long been on a course to becoming Socialist dictatorships. Leaving the Socialist EU will not solve the problem as long as Socialism remains the dominant element at home.

This is demonstrated by Norway who, though not an EU member, is as much plagued by mass immigration, multiculturalism and Islamisation as any country in the EU. What Britain and Norway have in common is not membership of the EU but a political system dominated by Socialism (and associated money interests).

The real problem then, is not the EU but the Socialised British establishment itself which holds the nation in a deadly stranglehold. So long as we are not prepared to confront our own home-grown demons very little, if anything, will change. What is alarming is that no political party so far has shown a willingness to take up the struggle and set Britain free.

(This article was last updated on 3 June 2013)

Aldrich, Richard J., “OSS, CIA and European Unity: The American Committee on United Europe, 1948-60,” International History Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, London, Nov. 1995; also in Diplomacy & Statecraft, Vol. 8, No. 1, London, March 1997, pp. 184-227.

Bacque, James, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation 1944-1950, London, 1997.

Baram, Marcus, “Government Sachs: Goldman’s Close Ties to Washington Arouse Envy and Raise Questions,” Huffington Post, 3 Jul. 2009.

Bideleux, Robert & Taylor, Richard, eds., European Integration and Disintegration: East and West, London, 1996.

Clarke, I. F., Voices Prophesying War 1763-1984, London, 1966.

Cohan, William D., Money and Power: How Goldman Sachs came to rule the world, London and New York, 2012.

Cowles, Maria Green, “Large Firms and the Transformation of EU Business Associations: a Historical Perspective,” in Greenwood, Justin, ed., The Effectiveness of EU Business Associations, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 2002, pp. 64-78.

Craig, David & Elliott, Matthew, The Great European Rip-Off, London, 2009.

Delingpole, James, “Goldman Sachs rules the world,” Daily Telegraph, 16 Nov. 2011.

De Villemarest, Pierre, Facts & Chronicles Denied To The Public, vols. 1 & 2, 2003; English trans. Slough, Berkshire, 2004.

De Zayas, Alfred-Maurice, A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans, 1944-1950, New York, NY, 1946.

Dietrich, John, The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy, New York, NY, 2002.

Dodsworth, Terry, “The Goldsmith Empire: Terry Dodsworth in New York reports on the investment strategy of the British businessman who has just launched a bid for the large Continental Group,” Financial Times, 13 Jun. 1984.

Dorril, Stephen, MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations, London, 2001.

Duchene, François, Monnet: The First Statesman of Interdependence, New York, 1996. 

Evans-Pritchard, Ambrose, “Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs,” Daily Telegraph, 23 Jul. 2011.

Ferguson, Niall, Empire: How Britain made the modern world, London, 2003. 

Ferguson, Niall, Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire, London, 2004.

Foley, Stephen, “What price the new democracy? Goldman Sachs conquers Europe,”Independent, 18 Nov. 2011.

Gillingham, John, European Integration 1950-2003: Superstate or New Market Economy?,Cambridge, 2003.

Goldsmith, James, Euro Referendum Party Conference, Brighton, 1996.

Graham, Otis L. Jr., ed., Perspectives on 20th Century America: Readings and Commentary, New York, NY, 1973.

Hall, Allan, “Germany was strong-armed by France into swapping the Deutschmark for the euro,” Daily Mail, 28 Sept. 2010.

Healey, Denis, The Time of My Life, London, 2006.

Hodson, Henry V., Twentieth-Century Empire, London, 1948.

Johnston, Philip, “France shows us how to deal with jihadis,” Daily Telegraph, 29 Apr. 2013.

Moncrieff, Chris, “The EU: ‘A German racket designed to take over the whole of Europe’,” Daily Mail, 21 Nov. 2011.

Monnet, Jean, Memoirs, London, 1978.

“Nigel Farage: Crisis Has Created ‘German Dominated’ Europe,” Huffington Post, 16 Nov. 2011.

Quigley, Carroll, The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden, San Pedro, CA, 1981.

Ratiu, Ioan, The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy: How an international elite is taking over and destroying Europe, America and the World, Richmond, 2012.

Richard, Henry & Burritt, Elihu, Report of the Proceedings of the Second General Peace Congress, held in Paris, on the 22nd, 23rd and 24th of August, 1849, Paris, 1849 books.google.co.uk

Roche, Marc, “Goldman Sachs, le trait d’union entre Mario Draghi, Mario Monti et Lucas Papademos,” Le Monde, 14 Nov. 2011.

Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), Britain in Western Europe: WEU and the Atlantic Alliance, London and New York, 1956, p. 14.

Salter, Arthur, Personality in Politics, London, 1947.

Sandbrook, Dominic, “Angela Merkel has made Germany master of Europe in a way Hitler and Kaiser Wilhelm only dreamt of. The implications are frightening” Daily Mail, 20 Apr. 2013.

Smoot, Dan, The Invisible Government, Boston, MA, 1962.

Stirn, Olivier, Mes Presidents. 50 ans au service de la Ve Republique (My Presidents: 50 Years in the Service of the 5th Republic), Paris, 2004.

Sutherland, Peter, “A constructive attitude towards migration is a moral issue,” address to the International Eucharistic Congress, Dublin, 15 Jun. 2012.

Van Apeldoorn, Bastiaan, “The European Round Table of Industrialists: Still a Unique Player?” in Greenwood, Justin, ed., The Effectiveness of EU Business Associations, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 2002, pp. 194-205.

Webb, Beatrice, Our Partnership, Drake, B. and Cole, M. eds., London, 1948.

Whitehead, Tom, “Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser,” Daily Telegraph, 23 Oct. 2009.

Winkler, Henry R., The League of Nations Movement in Great Britain 1914-1919, Metuchen, NJ, 1952.

Exposing the Labour Party (in fact all main stream parties, infiltrated by Fabians or those educated by Fabians LSE)

Exposing the Labour Party

by Cassivellaunus, 6 January 2013

The Labour Party is the largest, most powerful and most destructive group to have infiltrated British society and taken over political power in modern history.

Here is why everything about the Labour Party is deceptive, anti-democratic and anti-British:

The Labour Party has its roots in Fabian Socialism, a subversive ideology inspired by Marxism (see Socialism Exposed) and representing international financial interests, which aims to create a NEW WORLD ORDER while claiming to promote “social justice,” “welfare,” “prosperity,” etc.

The Labour Party was created by the Fabian Society whose leaders covertly advocated dictatorship while ostensibly promoting “democracy.”

The Labour Party has been responsible for introducing policies like mass immigration and multiculturalism, designed to destroy traditional British society and culture and reconstruct it in line with its internationalist schemes.

The Labour Party’s policy of state-sponsored mass immigration has resulted in wages being kept down and living costs going up, exposing it as a fraudulent organisation working against the interests of the working classes (indeed, of the whole population) whom it claims to represent.

History of the Labour Party

In 1884, a small group of Liberals and Radicals with links to financial interests established the Fabian Society of London as an organisation aiming to “reconstruct society” on Socialist lines (Pease, pp. 25-6).

Over the next few years, the Fabian Society set up local societies all over the country and, in 1893, these were merged to form the Independent Labour Party (ILP).

In 1900, the Fabian Society and the ILP formed the Labour Representation Committee (LRC).

The ILP and the LRC (later called Labour Party) became the two main political instruments through which the Fabian Society controlled Britain’s Socialist movement. 

In 1903, the LRC made a secret pact with the Liberal Party against the Conservatives, enabling it to win 29 seats in the 1906 general elections.

Soon after the 1906 elections, the organisation was renamed The Labour Party and the ILP became affiliated to it.

In 1913, Beatrice Webb remarked 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 (M. Cole, p. 167).

Indeed, true to its Fabian strategy, the Labour Party soon began to displace its former Liberal allies and by 1922 it became one of the two major political parties. In 1924 and 1929 it formed a minority government and in 1945 it formed its first majority government under Fabian Prime Minister Clement Attlee.

Already in 1905, the Labour Representation Committee had declared as its ultimate object the overthrow of Capitalism and “the institution of a system of public ownership of all means of production, distribution and exchange.” In the same vein, the Labour Party constitution adopted in 1918, written by Fabian leader Sidney Webb, aimed to establish state ownership of the means of production as well as state control of all industries and services (Pugh, p. 138).

Following the 1917 Communist Revolution in Russia, the Labour Party was quiet about the new regime for fear of being associated with revolutionary violence. However, by the early 1930s, the rise of nationalism and anti-Communism in Europe forced Labour leaders to show their true colours.

In 1931, Fabian Society leader Sidney Webb declared his belief that the Soviet Union was a model Fabian State (Cole, p. 255). In 1932, Webb and his wife Beatrice visited the Soviet Union and published a massive study eulogising Stalin’s Communist regime as a “new civilisation” to be emulated by the world (Soviet Communism: A New Civilization, 1935).

Similarly, Leonard Woolf, another leading Fabian who was secretary of the Labour Party’s Imperial and International Advisory Committees, described the Soviet Union as “the greatest civilisation in human history” (Callaghan, p. 121). 

During World War II, Labour MPs who had joined Winston Churchill’s coalition government began to campaign for Socialist policies like nationalisation, “social welfare” based on increased taxation and, in particular, co-operation with the Soviet Union as “the principal rallying point for the forces of Socialism throughout the world” (Callaghan, p. 156) 

On its election to office in 1945, the Labour government under PM Clement Attlee introduced the Beveridge Plan which created the “cradle to grave” welfare or Nanny State to deflect attention from its real agenda, which was the nationalisation of industries and services in imitation of the Soviet model and the dismantling of the British Empire in preparation for the establishment of world Socialist government.

Among other Socialist projects, Labour was instrumental in the creation of the United Nations (UN) which was run by pro-Soviet Socialists advised by Soviet Communist officials (Griffin, pp. 110, 114, 117-8), the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the European Union (originally European Coal and Steel Community).

Well into the 1960s, the Labour Party (under Harold Wilson) promoted the idea of the Soviet Union as a superior social and economic model to be emulated by Britain (Callaghan, p. 156). While its rhetoric has become more guarded and sophisticated, the Labour Party’s policies continue to be dictated by the old ideology of its Fabian founders, which explains the catastrophic results successive Labour governments have had on Britain and the world.

The Fabians’ ongoing hold on Labour

As admitted by the Fabian Executive itself, from the very start the Fabians were the “brainworkers” of the Labour Party (Fabian News, XXIX (5), Apr. 1918 in Pugh, p. 138). Fabians wrote Labour’s manifestos, programmes and policies, campaigned for Labour and stood for elections as Labour candidates, and the Fabian Society continues to influence Labour policy from within the party to this day.

All Labour governments have been dominated by Fabian Society members. For example, following the 1997 election, nearly the entire Labour Cabinet (including Prime Minister Blair) was composed of Fabians and there were about 200 Fabian MPs in the House of Commons (“The Fabian Society: a brief history,” Guardian, 13 August 2001). 

The Young Fabians, the Fabian Society’s under-31s section, who, like the Society itself are affiliated to the Labour Party, have been described as the “Labour MPs of the future” and all Labour Prime Ministers have been members of the Fabian Society.

While other interests, such as trade unions, also enjoy a degree of influence on Labour, no other organisation comes anywhere near the domination, indeed, control, commanded by the Fabian Society. What becomes indisputable is that the Labour Party is a front organisation of the Fabian Society.

Labour’s utter betrayal of the country

The areas on which the Labour Party has met strong – and fully justified – criticism from both rival parties (the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats) and the general public include: the economy, education, social breakdown, extremism, crime, immigration, multiculturalism and Islamisation.

The Economy under Labour

Labour’s economic policies were already exposed as bogus in the 1950s, following its introduction of Marxist-inspired measures such as the nationalisation of coal, iron and steel industries.

1997-2010. The policies imposed by Labour Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown following the Labour take-over of 1997 resulted in the longest and deepest recession since World War II, creating an unprecedented budget deficit of £90 billion in 2008/09. The apparent economic “boom” of the first years of Labour rule turned out to be a typical Labour con based on a corrupt credit system. As pointed out by the Guardian, not only is the deterioration of the public finances unprecedented, but it is due to the credit crunch which began in 2007 (“UK budget deficit hits record £90bn,” 22 Apr. 2009). The Labour-created economic disaster left three million people unemployed.

In the face of the facts Labour leader Ed Miliband was forced to declare that his party “take responsibility for the financial crisis that took place in 2007-2008.” Typically, he conveniently added that the Labour government “didn’t regulate the banks properly,” thereby admitting responsibility and blaming “the banks” in the same breath (“Miliband: ‘We Take Responsibility’ For Crash,” Sky News, 28 Sept. 2011).

The 2010 British Social Attitudes Survey, conducted by the National Centre for Social Research, has shown that after thirteen year of Labour rule the majority of British people rejected Labour policies like increased taxation, public services spending and, in particular, the welfare system which was seen as lending itself to abuse and preventing people from standing on their own feet (“Labour has pushed public opinion to the right, national survey suggests,” The Times, 26 Jan. 2010).

The Education System under Labour

Britain’s education system had already fallen into the hands of the Fabian Society in the late 1880s and early 1900s, when its members got themselves elected to the London School Board, the London County Council and the Technical Education Board (Pease, p. 83).

In 1934, the Labour Party took control of the London County Council – responsible for elementary and secondary schools – and similar bodies across the country. It had earlier seized control in universities and other institutions like the Fabian-created London School of Economics (LSE).

Labour’s education policies have been severely criticised by leading figures from politicians to business and industry leaders. A poll by the charity Business in the Community has found that many young people are unemployable, lacking skills from reading and writing to punctuality, presentation and communication (“School leavers are not fit for work, says M&S chief,” Daily Mail, 24 Nov. 2009). Office for National Statistics figures show that there were 100,000 unemployed graduates under 25 in 2009.

The fact that the Labour regime has found it necessary to import millions of skilled workers from countries like Pakistan speaks for itself. It shows that in spite of the vast amounts of tax-payers’ money invested in it, Britain’s education system is worse than that of failed Third World states!

The breakdown of British society under Labour

Already in the 1950s and 60s, British people’s traditional strong sense of family life and attachment to Christian values were labelled “unadmirable” and “undesirable” by Labour ideologists (Wollheim, p. 12). This was no accident. Karl Marx himself in his Communist Manifesto had boasted that Communists wanted to abolish the family.

As Tony Blair himself admitted, “the old left tended to ignore the importance of the family” (Rentoul, p. 201).

Unfortunately for the long-suffering British people, the “new” Left changed its policies about as much as leopards change their spots.

Indeed, whether “old” or “new,” Labour policy has been to ignore the importance of marriage in the development and progress of children, allegedly so as not to appear “discriminatory or judgemental” towards unmarried and single parents.

The direct result of this has been that in 2009 married couples became a minority in Britain for the first time in history and this in turn has led to a rise in broken homes and the anti-social and criminal behaviour that comes with it. 

The Labour Schools Secretary, Ed Balls, belatedly admitted that this policy was a mistake (“Labour does U-turn on love and marriage,” The Sunday Times, 27 Dec. 2009).

The overall result of Labour policies has been than the overwhelming majority of Britons (70%) now believe that British society is broken (“We’re living in broken Britain, say most voters,” The Times, 9 Feb. 2010).

The rising crime wave under Labour

Although Labour came to power in 1997 with the pledge of being “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime,” the truth is that with the rise of broken homes resulting from Labour’s anti-family policies, there has been a rise in anti-social and criminal behaviour among young people.

In 2000 there was a significant rise in violent crime and this trend continued unchanged during the Blair-Brown regime (“Big rise in violent crime,” BBC News, 18 Jul. 2000; “How the police missed the violence,” BBC News, 23 Oct. 2008).

Gavin Lockhart, head of Policy Exchange’s crime and justice unit has said: “After a decade of unprecedented spending on policing, courts and prisons, England and Wales have a recorded crime rate twice that of the European average” (“UK failing on causes of crime,” BBC News, 11 May 2009). In particular, religion-motivated extremism has become a new cause of crime under Labour.

Immigration under Labour

In 1948, Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee passed the British Nationality Act allowing all 800 million inhabitants of the British Empire to enter, live and work in the UK without restriction. Although public opinion forced it to introduce some restrictions on immigration, the Labour Party’s policy has been to allow more and more immigrants into Britain under various false pretences like the “need of skilled workers,” etc.

In 1997-2010, Labour’s Blair-Brown regime imposed an official, deliberate and systematic policy of mass immigration, while blatantly lying about the true extent of immigration (“Labour lied to public about immigration, says Ed Miliband’s aide Lord Glasman,” Daily Telegraph, 17 Apr. 2011). Labour’s policy of mass immigration, that is, deliberate and systematic import of cheap labour from abroad, has resulted in wages being kept artificially down, and clearly exposes Labourism – a system ostensibly representing the British working class – as a fraudulent system.

Indeed, far from representing the interests of the British public, mass immigration advances the agenda of private financial and industrial interests. Bank of England governor Mervyn King has said that cheap foreign labour helps keep wages down and Digby Jones, director-general of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) which was created by Shell, BP, Ford and associated interests, has declared that a cap on immigration would reduce the “flexibility” of the British labour market (“Figuring out role of migrant workers,” Financial Times, 4 May 2005).

Writing in the FT, which is owned by the Lazard-associated Pearson, former Wall Street Journal editor Amity Shlaes wrote that the aim of any party should be to win the votes of immigrants and friends of immigrants (“The right must learn the comfort of the strangers: Conservatives are falling into the same trap as Republicans by railing against immigration, not supporting growth,” FT, 10 Apr. 2001). Similarly,The Economist, co-owned by the Rothschilds, has claimed that restricting the number of talented immigrants damages the City’s prospects (“Global finance: Save the City,” The Economist, 7 Jan. 2012).

Following the demise of the Blair-Brown regime in 2010, immigration policies remained largely the same due to government advisory bodies like the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) which was set up by Labour in 2007 and is run by the likes of Professor David Metcalf, Emeritus Professor at the Centre for Economic Performance at the pro-immigration London School of Economics (LSE) and Dr Martin Ruhs, director of the Migration Observatory at Oxford University, who has served as adviser to a string of pro-immigrant bodies like the International Labour Organization (ILO), the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the Global Commission on International Migration (GCIM) and the UN Development Programme (UNDP).

Multiculturalism under Labour

In 1966, Labour Home Secretary and future President of the European Commission, Roy Jenkins – a former Fabian Society Chairman – initiated a shift in government policy from assimilation of immigrants to state-promoted “integration accompanied by cultural diversity” or multiculturalism (Patterson, p. 113).

The dishonest intent of Jenkins’ actions is evident from the fact that he deliberately waited until after the elections (in which Labour won an increased majority) to start promoting this change of policy (Banton, p. 71).

Since then, the policy of the Labour Party has been to transform Britain into a multicultural society. This is supposed to “enrich” British culture and make British society “better,” “more competitive” and “more successful.”

The 1997-2010 Labour regime’s relaxation of immigration controls was a deliberate plan “to open up the UK to mass migration” in order to make it “more multicultural” (“Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser,” Daily Telegraph, 23 Oct. 2009).

As in the case of mass immigration, multiculturalism has been made a virtual taboo subject. The British people have been given absolutely no say on the matter and all objective and critical discussion has been systematically suppressed and stifled. 

“Anti-racism” under Labour

Labour’s immigration policies led to the transformation of Britain into a multiracial society. The resulting inter-racial tensions were then used by Labour politicians to win the votes of immigrant communities and muster support for its anti-majority policies. “Anti-racism” has become Labour’s tool of choice for suppressing the rights of the indigenous population (Lewis, pp. 137 ff.), in effect becoming a new form of racism directed against the white majority.

For example, Camden Council’s 1978 employment policy stated:

“If two people of equal ability but of different colour apply for a job, we will pick the coloured person because coloured people are so underrepresented at the moment” (Joppke, pp. 230-1).

This anti-indigenous policy married up with European Union legislation which led to an extraordinary situation where EU-nationals enjoyed more immigration rights in Britain than did British citizens (Joppke, 136). 

Labour’s promotion of Islam and the spread of Islamic Extremism

The Labour policies of uncontrolled and unlimited immigration from Islamic countries, especially Pakistan; shambolic student visa system; mandatory multiculturalism; systematic sponsorship of Islamic schools, cultural centres, charities and mosques; appointment of Muslims in key positions in the Labour Party, Ministry of Justice, Home Office (responsible for immigration and asylum), Social Services, etc., have enabled Islamic extremist organisations to infiltrate all sections of British society and obtain support, funds and recruits for their anti-British activities.

In 1998, under Tony Blair’s newly elected “New Labour” regime, Nazir Ahmed who was born in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, became Britain’s first Muslim life peer.

In 2000, Tony Blair infamously stated in an interview with Muslim News: “There is a lot of misunderstanding about Islam. It is a deeply reflective, peaceful and very beautiful religious faith and I think it would be hugely helpful if people from other religious faiths knew more about it” (Muslim News, March 2000).

In August 2006, Tony Blair praised the Koran as “progressive” and Muslim-occupied countries as “the standard-bearers of tolerance” (Speech to the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles, 1 Aug. 2006).

The belief in a religion’s apparent ability to invade and subjugate entire nations while at the same time bearing the “standard of tolerance” is worthy of psychiatric analysis. Unfortunately, it has become the norm in the current left-wing dominated political climate and those who dare challenge it are attacked and silenced by the new order and its henchmen.

In a similar vein, Blair also boasted that he reads the Koran every day which he claims keeps him “faith literate” (Drury, 2011). 

In June 2007, under Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Shahid Malik became Britain’s first Muslim Minister, being appointed International Development Minister (and later Justice Minister, Home Office Minister and Minister for Race, Faith and Community Cohesion).

As revealed by a Policy Exchange report in 2009, ₤90 million spent on “fighting Islamic extremism” actually went to groups linked to extremist organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Jamaat-e Islami in Pakistan. Other beneficiaries included the Muslim Council of Britain, the United Kingdom Islamic Mission and the Islamic Society of Britain. In an attempt to win Muslim votes, in Luton alone the Home Office project “Preventing Violent Extremism” funded seven Muslim centres(“How the Government pays Muslims to vote Labour,” Daily Telegraph, 17 March 2009). 

In 2010, Labour appointed as Shadow Lord Chancellor Sadiq Khan who, not surprisingly, declared that “Labour is, and has always been the Party of British Muslims” (“Khan: Labour’s the only way forward for British Muslims,” Left Foot Forward, 3 May 2010).

In 2013, Labour Leader Ed Miliband appointed Khan Shadow Minister for London and leader of Labour’s election campaign:

The Labour regime’s cooperation with Islamic extremists

While not all Muslims are extremists, all Muslim populations have an extremist percentage. As the Muslim population in Britain grows, the extremist percentage grows, too. A population of two million Muslims means thousands of extremists, i.e., too many for the intelligence services and the police forces to monitor and control.

As pointed out by leftist journalist Polly Toynbee, the Left has embraced the extreme Islamist cause, which excites its revolutionary zeal (“We must be free to criticise without being called racist,” Guardian, 18 Aug. 2004).

Labour Socialism has always sided with Islamic extremism in its effort to create a “New World Order”. This is why Labour has been unwilling to antagonise the Muslim minority by tackling its extremist elements. The Labour policy has not been one of eradication of Islamic extremism, but one of “containment” by bribing the Muslim minority and its extremist elements through concessions and cooperation.

In 2004, the UK Foreign Office (headed by Jack Straw) set up the Engaging with the Islamic World (EIW) Group consisting of 18 civil servants, including Muslims, and led by the pro-Muslim Frances Guy. As Ambassador to Lebanon, Guy later praised Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, a supporter of Iran with links to Hezbollah terrorists, as a “true man of religion,” adding that the world needed more like him. In 2007, the FO merged EIW with its Counter Terrorism (CT) programme to form the “Countering Terrorism and Radicalisation Programme.”

In May 2006, the Foreign Office held a conference entitled “Challenging Stereotypes in Europe and the Islamic World” at Wilton Park, to discuss “Islamophobia” in the UK and related issues. The Conference was convened at the request of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and was attended by Guy’s EIW Group.

In July 2006, the Foreign Office (headed by Margaret Beckett) sponsored a large gathering of European Islamist organisations in Turkey which concluded that all Muslims in Europe should abide by the Koran as a means of “enriching Europe” and setting an example for non-Muslims to follow (Pargeter, pp. 198-9; TopkapiDeclaration, 2 Jul. 2006).

This warped strategy even applies to the British campaign in Afghanistan. For example, in 2008 Labour Government plans were exposed for intending to build a secret military training camp for thousands of Taliban fighters to “make them swap sides” (“Revealed: British plan to build training camp for Taliban fighters in Afghanistan,”Independent, 4 Feb. 2008).

In Britain, the established policy of intelligence services and police forces has been to collaborate with some extremists in order to keep other extremists down. Inevitably, the extremists are playing their own games with the intelligence services, the overall result being that Islamic extremists and State authorities are collaborating with each other against the interests, safety and security of the British people.

Among organisations recruiting Muslim fundamentalists under Blair’s New Labour regime were:

MI6, which recruited Indian-born Haroon Rashid Aswat, believed to have masterminded the 7/7 London bombings (FOX News, “Day Side,” 29 Jul. 2005; “As 3 Nations Consulted, Terror Suspect Eluded Arrest,” The New York Times, 29 Jul. 2005);

MI5 (“Al Qaeda may have infiltrated British Security Service,” FOX News, 1 Aug. 2009); 

Scotland Yard, which appointed adviser on combating extremism and terrorism the Tunisian immigrant Mohamed Ali Harrath, co-founder of the Tunisian Islamic Front, a fundamentalist organisation advocating the establishment of an Islamic state in Tunisia and on an Interpol list for terrorism-related offences (“Sack Mohamed Ali Harrath, Scotland Yard told,” The Times, 16 Dec. 2008; “Muslim Channel chief held over terror allegations,” The Times, 26 Jan. 2010);

Territorial Army (“Territorial Army infiltrated by Al-Qaeda,” The Sunday Times, 17 Oct. 2004).

The facts on the ground show that in spite of Labour’s cooperation with Islamic extremists the threat of Islamic terrorism after 7 July 2005 was rising, not falling:

In April 2009, a terrorist plot to bomb Easter shoppers in Manchester was uncovered (Daily Telegraph, 9 Apr. 2009).

In December 2009, Scotland Yard warned London businesses that “Mumbai is coming to London,” in reference to the November 2008 terror attacks on the Indian city of Mumbai (“Police expect Mumbai-style attack on City,” The Sunday Times, 20 Dec. 2009).

In September 2010, plans to carry out co-ordinated terrorist attacks on London and other European capitals were uncovered by intelligence agencies (“Terror plot against Britain thwarted by drone strike,” Daily Telegraph, 28 Sept. 2010).

In 2011, plans for further attacks by Muslim extremists with links to al-Qaeda aiming to unleash “another 9/11” were uncovered (“Al-Qaeda terrorists ‘plotted suicide attacks to kill British soldiers’,” Daily Telegraph, 26 Jan. 2013), etc. 

Labour and foreign policy

The Labour Party has long made it clear that its foreign policy is intended to be “a logical extension of our work at home” (Labour Party manifesto 1983).

What Labour has failed to disclose to its members and supporters is that, like its domestic policy, its foreign policy has always been shaped by leading Fabian Society members operating within the party, such as Leonard Woolf, Kenneth Younger, John Strachey and Denis Healey (Fielding, p. 5).

Unsurprisingly, Labour’s foreign policy has followed the established Fabian pattern leading to a New World Order, World Government and a Socialist World State, all projects representing international money interests.

In 1939, Philip Noel-Baker of the Labour Party National Executive Committee, who later joined the Fabian International Bureau and served as Secretary for Commonwealth Relations, declared:

“The Labour Party will not abandon, now or ever, the vision of a new world order” (Labour Party Annual Conference Report, 1939).

In addition to designing Labour’s foreign policy, these Fabian elements occupied the appropriate positions in the Labour apparatus that enabled them to pursue their nefarious agendas. Working in close collaboration with fellow Fabians across the Atlantic and backed by financial interests operating within the US State Department (e.g., the Fabian Socialist Rockefellers), they set up a web of international organisations working for the establishment of a Fabian Socialist New World Order.

These organisations included the League of Nations and its successor, the United Nations (UN), the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the Socialist International, the Bilderberg Group and the European Union (originally European Coal and Steel Community).

The United Nations. As admitted by Fabian Executive member and Chairman of the Fabian International Bureau Denis Healey, the main objective of the 1945-51 Attlee Government had been the conversion of the United Nations into “some form of world government,” which was to be achieved “by a steady strengthening in both the scope and the authority of the United Nations” (Healey, 1963, pp. 1, 3).

This was reiterated in Labour Party manifestos like that of 1964 which stated:

“For us world government is the final objective and the United Nations the chosen instrument …”

Another chosen instrument of world government was NATO. Ostensibly meant to contain the expansion of Soviet and Chinese Communism, NATO was in fact used by the Attlee government as a smokescreen to make deals with the Communist regimes and promote world Socialism.

In a 1952 essay with an introduction by Attlee, leading Fabian and Labourite (later Labour Party Chairman) Richard Crossman wrote:

 “A victory for either side would be a defeat for socialism. We are members of the Atlantic Alliance (NATO); but this does not mean that we are enemies of every Communist revolution” (Griffin, p. 173).

The Socialist International is another creature (and creation) of the Fabian Society working in collaboration with the Labour Party for the establishment of world government. At the 2-4 June 1962 Oslo Conference, the SI declared that: 

“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 so that it may become more and more effective …”

Among the more shadowy organisations concerned with world government is the Bilderberg Group. The Group is a typical Fabian organisation set up in 1954 by leading Fabians Joseph Retinger (a London-based Polish Socialist belonging to Fabian Society circles), Hugh Gaitskell and Denis Healey in collaboration with David and Nelson Rockefeller and other leading Council on Foreign Relations officials. Healey was a member of the Bilderberg Steering Committee from inception (Callaghan pp. 203-4; de Villemarest, 2004, vol. 2, p. 15; Healey, 2006, pp. 195-6; Rockefeller, p. 411).

The Bilderberg Group, the European Movement and the Action Committee for a United States of Europe (ACUSE) – founded by French left-winger Jean Monnet – were the key organisations campaigning for a united Europe in the 1940s and 50s(Aldrich, 216), which led to the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) that later became the European Union.

Other leading Labourites campaigning for a united or federated Europe included John Hynd; Ernest Bevin, the architect of the Western European Union; and Clement Attlee himself, who in 1952 launched the Socialist Union (SU) which campaigned for a Socialism-based European federation.

Labour’s efforts at building Socialism at home and in Europe were generously remunerated by Rockefeller-associated interests operating through the US State and Treasury Departments and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Thus, in 1947 alone (under PM Attlee), Labour drew over $2.75 billion from US funds in addition to one-quarter billion dollars from the IMF (Martin, p. 77).

Similarly, in 1969, Labour’s Wilson Government (with Roy Jenkins as Chancellor) raised $4 billion, 1 billion of which came from the Rockefeller-controlled IMF (Martin, p. 109).

Unsurprisingly, when Labour spoke of a united Europe, it meant a Socialist Europe and this is the key to the correct understanding of the Party’s ambiguity towards joining the European Community a.k.a. Common Market.

As pointed out by Churchill, the Labour Party Conference of 1947 had declared:

“If the United States of Europe is indeed to succeed and to benefit its peoples, it can only fully succeed if all the countries of Western Europe commit themselves, as our electors committed themselves in 1945, to the belief that Socialism is the hope of us all” (Churchill, 1950).

Lord Salter, a former member of the Fabian Society and Labour supporter, similarly noted Labour’s concern that joining non-Socialist Western European countries (like Christian Democratic West Germany and Gaullist Republican France) would be detrimental to the development of Socialism in Britain (Salter, p. 311; cf. Martin, p. 96).

Nevertheless, once initial opposition had been overcome, Labourites like Harold Wilson were more than happy to lead Britain’s entry effort (Dinan, p. 78) and, four years after Britain’s 1973 accession, Roy Jenkins who had led the “Britain in Europe” campaign, became President of the European Commission.

In 1976, amidst soaring oil prices plunging the world economy into recession, Britain was plagued by high unemployment and rising inflation made worse by extortionate contributions to the European Community’s Common Agricultural Policy, lavish public and foreign aid spending and a slumping pound. The Labour Party once again turned to its long-standing paymasters: Denis Healey, now Labour Chancellor, asked the Rockefeller-controlled IMF for a humiliating bailout of $4 billion (£2.3 billion)(Stone-Lee, 2005). Moreover, he placed Britain’s economy under IMF supervision.

Tellingly, in 1977, Healey became chairman of the Interim Committee of the IMF Board of Governors, a post he held until 1979. At the same time, Roy Jenkins was President of the European Commission while their friend and collaborator Robert McNamara was head of the World Bank.

All three were connected with international financial interests, in particular, with the Rockefeller Group, either directly or through organisations like the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group, in which David Rockefeller was a leading element. In addition, from 1973, Rockefeller was a member (later chairman) of the US Advisory Committee on Reform of the International Monetary System. 

It comes as no surprise then, that under Roy Jenkins’ presidency, the European Commission in 1979 established the European Monetary System (EMS) which linked the currencies of most EC countries. Moreover, towards the end of Jenkins’ presidency, in January 1981, the European Commission proposed closer co-operation between EMS central banks and the US Federal Reserve System.

The project, known as “Fecomisation,” after FECOM (French for European Monetary Co-operation Fund or EMCF), was abandoned after being criticised for its potential to put control over national money supply in the hands of a supranational organisation (Ungerer, p. 176). The fact that it had been proposed in the first place, however, exposes the European project’s true objective.

The centralisation of international finance and subordination of the world’s economies to an international authority had long been the flagship of left-wing financial interests with close links to the Milner Group, the Fabian Society and the Labour Party. Already in the early 1920s, former president of the Rockefeller-controlled National City Bank of New York, Frank A. Vanderlip, had laid out details of a plan for a world bank with branches in all countries (“Vanderlip Gives Details Of Plan For World Bank,” New York Times, 13 Nov. 1921).

At the same time, the Rockefellers were bankrolling the Fabian Society’s London School of Economics (Rockefeller, p. 81), where current and future Labour ideologues and policy-makers studied and taught. As we have just seen, the Rockefellers later came to bankroll the Labour Party itself, though not, of course, for nothing. The price was national indebtedness to international organisations like the IMF and subordination to the money interests behind them. 

Labour and the Islamisation of Europe

Labour’s financial indebtedness to oil interests like the Rockefellers and their Arab partners – borrowing from OPEC countries had been another brainchild of Labour Chancellor Denis Healey (Healey, 2006, pp. 423-6) – explains its behaviour towards Muslims, Islam, and Islamisation.

On 27 July 2005, only 20 days after the 7/7 London bombings and after meeting with the Spanish and Turkish leaders in Downing Street, Labour PM Tony Blair welcomed Spanish President Jose Luis Zapatero’s plan for an Alliance of Civilisations (AoC) aiming to “combat terrorism” by bringing Christian and Muslim countries together and stressed the particular involvement of Turkey in the project (“Blair welcomes ‘alliance of civilisations’ plan,” Guardian, 27 Jul. 2005).

It will be recalled that in January 2006, quoting the Sufi Sheikh Ba, Ambassador Frances Guy declared that bringing Turkey into the European Union was a way of “binding” the two religions together to prove that there was no clash of civilisations (Frances Guy, “Policies of the West towards the Muslim World,” Speech to Chevening Scholars, Birmingham, 27 Jan. 2006).

In November 2007, at the Opening Ceremony at the Bruges Campus, College of Europe, Bruges, Belgium, Labour Foreign Secretary David Miliband spoke in favour of “unbreakable ties” with Europe’s Muslim neighbour countries and inclusion of Turkey, the Middle East and North Africa in Europe. Ominously, he stressed the need of developing shared institutions to overcome religious and cultural divides between Europe and Muslim countries (“EU ‘should expand beyond Europe’”, BBC News, 15 Nov. 2007).

Labour’s Yugoslavia War

In 1999, a NATO coalition led by left-wing leaders Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroeder (Germany’s Socialist Democrat leader) waged war on Yugoslavia under the false pretext of “genocide” against Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian Muslims (in reality, there had been no genocide – the ethnic Albanian population had fled over the border to Albania – and, as pointed out by China, the NATO campaign was really intended to bring the whole of Europe under US-British control).

The irony is that while US and British forces were “saving” Kosovo Muslims from the Serbs, Muslim terrorist organisations like Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda were planning attacks on US and British targets. These plans – involving attacks on the New York Trade Center and the Pentagon – were carried out on 7 Nov 2001 and led to the next two conflicts.

Labour’s Afghanistan War

In 2001, the USA under President George W. Bush began a military operation in Afghanistan to hunt down Osama bin Laden and remove the Taliban regime which was protecting him.

As regime change in Afghanistan suited Labour’s global strategy, Tony Blair’s government joined the US campaign against the Taliban. However, as in the case of Yugoslavia, the Labour Government didn’t tell the British people the whole truth about Afghanistan.

The Labour Government didn’t tell the people that the Taliban had been created by the British Intelligence Services in collaboration with the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI, in the first place – as admitted by former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf in his book In the Line of Fire, 2006.

What the Labour Government also didn’t tell the British people was that Osama bin Laden himself had been sponsored by the same groups and that the roots of Islamic extremism were to be found not in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan, where the Taliban has its bases and masterminds, and Saudi Arabia, from where Islamic extremists get financial support (the 9/11 attackers, including Osama bin Laden, were not from Afghanistan, but from Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern Arab states).

Another important fact that was being concealed by the Labour regime is that the alternative government in Afghanistan aims to establish an Islamic republic that would be similar or identical to the Taliban State and so continue to provide a launching pad for anti-British and anti-Western extremism.

Labour’s Iraq War

In 2003, Britain and America invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein’s regime on the pretext that it had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which could reach Britain “within 45 minutes”. In fact, the “evidence” for WMDs turned out to have existed only in Tony Blair’s imagination.

It is true that Saddam Hussein was a bloodthirsty tyrant who had the blood of thousands of innocent people on his hands and everybody agrees that his removal was a good thing. However, several serious concerns about the war remain.

1. The war was waged on false pretexts.

2. The true reasons behind the removal of Saddam Hussein were US-British oil interests and expansionist ambitions in the region which were opposed by Saddam and his regime. 

3. The US and British leadership completely failed to come up with a viable plan for the reconstruction of Iraq after Saddam’s removal. This has facilitated the spread of extremism in Iraq and has enabled Iran to expand its influence, while weakening Britain’s own position, in the region. 

4. Britain’s military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq has been a complete failure for two reasons. First, these countries have traditional Muslim populations that do not want to live according to Western “democratic values”. Second, Afghanistan and Iraq are the wrong targets. The correct targets are Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran. While secondary elements in the global terrorist network (like Afghanistan) are being targeted for reasons of political expediency and propaganda, the primary elements – Pakistan and Saudi Arabia – are treated as untouchable and above international law, and even as “friends and allies in the fight against terror”!

The result of the Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq Wars is that there has been no improvement in the security of the British people. On the contrary, while British troops have been laying down their lives in foreign countries, a new generation of Islamic extremists has been raised on British soil, as shown by the 7 July 2005 attacks on London’s transport network and other atrocities planned and attempted since (see above).

As usual, it is not the political leaders who are affected by Islamic terrorism, but innocent ordinary people. Indeed, the Islamist-Establishment conspiracy against the common people is confirmed by the fact that to date no Western leaders have been targeted by Islamist terrorists even though it would be well within the means of well-trained and well-funded professional assassins to do so.  

Labour and genocide

Labour’s connections with genocidal ideologies go back to its Marxist roots. Karl Marx’s concept of Socialist revolution revolved on the division of society into two classes, the “revolutionary” and the “reactionary,” of which the latter was to be physically eliminated in order to give way to those who were “fit” for the new Socialist world order. Marx wrote:

“The present generation is like the Jews, whom Moses led through the wilderness. It has not only a new world to conquer, it must go under, in order to make room for the men who are fit for a new world” (Class Struggles in France, 1850, p. 114).

Marx’s collaborator Engels, who became a leading Marxist ideologist in his own right, went even further, declaring that whole nations – deemed “reactionary” – were destined to perish in a future Socialist world war and this would be a “step forward”(“The Magyar Struggle,” 13 Jan. 1849, MECW, vol. 8, p. 227).

Unsurprisingly, Russia’s Marxist regime led by Lenin and Trotsky initiated a programme of mass killings – known as “The Red Terror” – as soon as it seized power in 1917. Lenin’s successor Stalin executed 681,692 persons for “anti-Soviet activities” in 1937-38 (one year) alone (Pipes, 2001, p. 66) and the total number of its victims has been estimated at between 20 million (Conquest, 1991) and 62 million(Rummel, 1990).

Among the Labour Party’s Fabian masterminds were many Marxists and, in particular, Stalinists. As already noted, Fabian Society leaders Sidney and Beatrice Webb were great admirers of Lenin and Stalin. Another Fabian leader, Bernard Shaw, repeatedly praised the Soviet regime and described Stalin as a “good Fabian”.

Inevitably, there was no shortage of Stalinists among leading Labourites, many of whom were Fabians. Some, like D N Pritt were so rabidly pro-Stalin that they had to be expelled from the party. Stafford Cripps (Beatrice Webb’s millionaire nephew) was also expelled, but was appointed ambassador to Moscow by Churchill and rejoined the Labour Party as President of the Board of Trade after the war.

Labour’s proximity to Stalinist (and more generally Communist) Russia is evident from the fact that it looked to that country as a social and economic model for Britain well into the 1960s, notably under Harold Wilson (a former Fabian Society Chairman) and his Fabian advisers like Thomas Balogh (Callaghan, pp. 198-200). The party has retained a scattering of Stalinists, e.g., Jack Straw, to the present day.

However, one of Labour’s darkest – and best-kept – secrets is its collaboration in the systematic murder of between five and six  million German men, women and children who perished as a result of deportation, mistreatment and starvation at the hands of Allied authorities between 1944 and 1950 (de Zayas, p. 111; Bacque, pp. 119, 204; Dietrich, pp. 107-8, 140-1).

One of the driving forces behind this genocide was US Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr., who devised a plan based on the belief that all Germans deserved to be punished and entailed the dismemberment and de-industrialisation of Germany. 

The Morgenthau Plan was backed by US President Franklin D Roosevelt who said:

“We have got to be tough with Germany and I mean the German people, not just the Nazis” (Morgenthau, 1944).

Although Churchill pointed out that the plan would starve the Germans, he eventually agreed to it (Kimball, pp. 38-40). The deportation and starvation of millions of Germans went ahead in 1944 under the Churchill-Attlee Coalition Government and was carried on from 1945 to 1950 under Attlee’s Labour Government.

Labour’s subsequent policies of genocide revolved around immigration and race relations (Shell, 2011). The party leadership and the Fabian elements behind it had long been instigating anti-colonial agitation in the Colonies.

Already in the 1930s, Frank Horrabin who later became Chairman of the Fabian Society’s Colonial Bureau, which operated in close collaboration with the Labour Party had declared:

“Truly, the black inhabitants of Earth have a long and fearful score to pay off against their white brethren” (Horrabin, p. 66).

In the early 1950s, Labour called for a “world uprising of colonial peoples against the old imperialism” (Labour Party Annual Conference, 1953).

As Labour legislation facilitated large-scale immigration of non-whites from Commonwealth countries into Britain, the Labour Party increasingly sided with the newcomers against Britain’s indigenous population.

By the 1980s, under the pretext of “race equality,” Labour policy aimed to change what it had identified as the “power relations between white and black people” in favour of the non-white immigrant population, as evident from A Policy for Equality: Race (ILEA, 1983) and other Labour programmatic papers.

As already noted, Camden Council’s 1978 employment policy stated:

“If two people of equal ability but of different colour apply for a job, we will pick the coloured person because coloured people are so underrepresented at the moment” (Joppke, pp. 230-1).

This shift of power relations in favour of the non-white immigrant population was accelerated by the policy of mass immigration devised by the Blair-Brown Labour Government of 1997-2010. Ostensibly intended “to make Britain more multicultural,” the policy had clear racial and genocidal implications: making a population more multicultural through mass immigration amounts to making it multiethnic or multiracial; and this amounts to the suppression of one ethnic or racial group in favour of another, which comes very close to the accepted definition of genocide.

The UN Resolution 96 (I), The Crime of Genocide, 11 December 1946, states:

“Genocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right to live of individual human beings …

The General Assembly, therefore, Affirms, that genocide is a crime under international law … for the commission of which principals and accomplices – whether private individuals, public officials or statesmen, and whether the crime is committed on religious, racial, political or any other grounds – are punishable.”

The impact of Labour’s policy of mass immigration on Britain’s indigenous population is obvious and beyond dispute. As admitted by Lee Jasper of the National Assembly Against Racism:

“At the moment ethnic minorities are about 40 per cent in London … We could have a majority black Britain by the turn of the century” (Browne, 2000).

To achieve this goal, the Labour Party has been operating in tandem with organisations like the UN, Labour’s chosen instrument for world government, whose head of immigration Peter Sutherland has called for the EU to “undermine the national homogeneity” of European states and believes that the migration of hundreds of millions of Africans to Europe is “a good thing”

Labour and international money interests

Business, industry and banking are important sectors of the economy. A nation’s economic prosperity depends on co-operation between these sectors and the political leadership. However, when the public are being kept in the dark about the links between vested business interests and politics or, worse, when business and politics ignore democratic principles and procedures and conspire with foreign money interests against the interests of the general public, then we have a serious problem.

Policies like mass immigration resulting in low wages and high living costs as well as the displacement of the indigenous population and its replacement with immigrants may serve the interests of business and its political allies. They cannot possibly serve the interests of the majority of the people.

The question that must be asked, therefore, is whose interests does Labour really represent?

Labour’s connections with financial interests have been commented on by many left-wing observers from David Osler to Lee Jasper. Jasper has noted an increased impact of multinational businesses on the Labour Party “brought in by Tony Blair” (Simpson, 2011).  

Osler’s observation that a “select coterie of businessmen – not all of them upright – enjoyed close ties to the Labour Party” even under Harold Wilson (Osler, p. 12), comes closer to the truth. The fact is that Labour has been close to business interests from the time of Stafford Cripps, Beatrice Webb’s millionaire nephew; Hugh Gaitskell and Denis Healey, co-founders of the Bilderberg Group with the Rockefellers (see above); and, before that, to its Fabian founders like Bernard Shaw and the Webbs, who enjoyed close ties to the Astors, the Balfours, the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers.

And as all the above Labourites, from the Webbs to Wilson, were Fabian Society members, a direct link between Labour, the Fabian Society and international money interests can be established.

To be sure, the Conservatives have not been without their own connections to high finance. For example, Oliver Letwin has been a long-time banker with N M Rothschild (Wolf, 1988) as well as leading Conservative policy adviser. Mr Letwin is also a former member of the Fabian Society.

Such connections may help explain the fact that the Tory Party has been steadily drifting to the left (Hitchens, 2006). However, unlike Labour, the Tories still have a core – albeit a dwindling one – of true conservatives, of men and women genuinely concerned with the preservation of their country, its society and culture and who cherish its traditional values.

By contrast, the Labour Party – an organisation identical with the Fabian Society (at least at leadership level) – has come to stand for mass immigration, multiculturalism and Islamisation, that is, for the deliberate and systematic transformation of British society and culture beyond recognition in line with Fabian ideology. Moreover, such policies are clearly in harmony with the objectives of left-wing international money interests.

The evidence speaks for itself. Leading Fabian Socialist Lord Mandelson, former EU Trade Commissioner, is not only the architect of New Labour, but also a close friend of the Rothschilds and other international plutocrats. In January 2011, just seven months after leaving office as First Secretary of State, Mandelson was introduced to the global investment bank Lazard Ltd by his friend Nat Rothschild who had been a banker there in the 1990s (Moore, 2012). 

Lazard have been close associates of Rothschild and Rockefeller interests since the early 1900s and have a history of generous support for leading Socialists around the globe, including US President Barack Obama. Mandelson is also the president of the international Socialist think-tank Policy Network established in 1999 by US President Bill Clinton, Prime Minister Tony Blair and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder.

Mandelson’s disciple Tony Blair has equally enjoyed close links to the same clique. While his close collaboration with Clinton in the War against Serbia links him with George Soros, a long-time Rothschild-associate and supporter of Clinton’s Democratic Party who had mining and other interests in the region, Blair’s support for the Iraq War – generally acknowledged to have been about control of oil deposits – clearly ranks him among the puppets of international oil interests.

Indeed, we find that the main interests controlling oil in post-war Iraq are the Rockefellers (Exxon, Chevron), the Rothschilds (Shell, Genel) and their associates like Communist China.

Only six months after leaving office in 2007, Blair took on a post as adviser to J P Morgan (part of the Rockefellers’ JPMorgan Chase bank), whose International Advisory Council he currently chairs. Fellow Council members include: long-time Rockefeller associates Henry Kissinger and Kofi Annan; Khalid Al-Falih, President and CEO of Saudi Aramco (a former Rockefeller-Saudi operation); and Gao Xi-Qing, Vice-Chairman, President and Chief Investment Officer of Communist China’s state-owned wealth fund China Investment Corporation.

As neither Blair nor Mandelson can be supposed to have suddenly discovered an ideological affinity with the above interests, it is safe to say that their agenda has always been in harmony with that of said interests.

Indeed, already in 1993, that is, before becoming Labour Leader and Prime Minister, Blair had joined the World Economic Forum’s (a Rockefeller-dominated organisation) Global Leaders of Tomorrow group whose members were expected to promote the WEF’s agendas. In other words, we elected a Rockefeller front man for Prime Minister. 

What becomes clear is that Labour’s policies can only be fully understood when examined against the background of its overarching objective of establishing a New World Order ruled by a Socialist World Government backed (and controlled) by a financial elite operating from behind the scenes (the Rockefellers, the Rothschildsand their associates).

The three tiers of this power structure are made up of (1) an international money elite controlling natural resources like oil, banks and “philanthropic” foundations, followed by (2) “think-tanks” like the Fabian Society, educational and academic institutions like the London School of Economics (LSE) and the University of Oxford, and media outlets like The TimesGuardian, etc., playing key roles in public policy making and opinion forming processes, followed by (3) left-wing political organisations like the Labour Party.

1. International Elite(vested interests controlling natural resources,banks and foundations)
2. Think-tanks, academic institutions and media outletssponsored, owned or controlled by the above(the Fabian Society, LSE, Oxford University, etc., ) 
3. Labour Party(and all other political organisations influenced,dominated or controlled  by the above)

Table 1. The international elite’s power structure

Labour’s overarching objective is evident from its election manifestos and annual conference reports calling in unambiguous terms for a “New World Order” (1939), a “Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain” (1945), a “Socialist Europe” (1975), “a (Socialist) World Government” (1964), etc.

In sum, all this exposes the Labour Party as an organisation representing the interests of a left-wing international elite which has bankrolled Labour governments since the 1940s and 60s through outfits like the IMF (see above).

(This article is based on Chapter 3, The Labour Party, of The Milner-Fabian Conspiracyby Ioan Ratiu) 

See also:

The Labour Party, a puppet of the Fabian Society

Aldrich, Richard J., “OSS, CIA and European Unity: The American Committee on United Europe, 1948-60,” International History Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, London, Nov. 1995; also in Diplomacy & Statecraft, Vol. 8, No. 1, London, March 1997, pp. 184-227.

Bacque, James, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation 1944-1950, London, 1997.

Banton, Michael, Promoting racial harmony, Cambridge, 1985.

Browne, Anthony, “The last days of a white world,” Observer, 3 Sept. 2000.

Callaghan, John, The Labour Party and Foreign Policy: A History, Abingdon, Oxon, 2007.

Churchill, Winston, in “Schuman Plan,” House of Commons Debate, 27 June 1950, vol. 476 c2144.

Cole, Margaret, The Story of Fabian Socialism, London, 1961.

De Villemarest, Pierre, Facts & Chronicles Denied To The Public, vols. 1 & 2, 2003; English trans. Slough, Berkshire, 2004.

De Zayas, Alfred-Maurice, A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans, 1944-1950, New York, NY, 1946.

Dietrich, John, The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy, New York, NY, 2002.

Dinan, Desmond, Ever Closer Union? An Introduction to the European Community, Basingstoke, 1994.

Drury, Ian, “I read the Koran every day, says former prime minister Tony Blair who claims it keeps him ‘faith-literate’”, Daily Mail, 13 June 2011.

Fielding, Rodney, “A socialist foreign policy?”,  Fabian Tract No. 401, London, 1970. 

Griffin, G. Edward, The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations, Belmont, MA, 1964.

Healey, Denis, “A Labour Britain and the World,” Fabian Tract No. 352, London, 1963.

Healey, Denis, The Time of My Life, London, 2006.

Hitchens, Peter, “Cameron a supporter of New Labour?”, Mail Online, Blog entry, 1 March 2006.

Horrabin, J. F., Plebs, March, 1932, quoted in Padmore, George, “’Left’ Imperialism and the Negro Toilers,” Labour Monthly, vol. 14, no. 5, May 1932.

Joppke, Christian, Immigration and the Nation-State: The United States, Germany and Great Britain, New York, NY, 1999.

Kimball, Warren F., Swords or Ploughshares? The Morgenthau Plan for Defeated Nazi Germany, New York, NY, 1976.

Lewis, Russell, Anti-Racism: A Mania Exposed, London, 1988.

MacDonogh, Giles, After the Reich: From the Liberation of Vienna to the Berlin Airlift, London, 2007.

Martin, Rose, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A., Chicago, IL, 1966.

Moore, Elaine, “Mandelson leads Lazard international arm,” Financial Times, 18 Nov. 2012.

Morgenthau, Henry, Jr., Morgenthau Memorandum of Conversation With Roosevelt, 19 Aug. 1944, Presidential Diaries, Morgenthau Papers, Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Hyde Park, NY, pp. 1386-88, in Kimball, Swords or Ploughshares?, p. 96.

Osler, David, Labour Party Plc: New Labour As A Party Of Business, Edinburgh, 2002.

Pargeter, Alison, The New Frontiers of Jihad: Radical Islam in Europe, London, 2008.

Patterson, Sheila, Immigration and Race Relations in Britain 1960-1967, London, 1969.

Pease, Edward, R., History of the Fabian Society: The Origins of English Socialism, New York, NY, 1916.

Pugh, Patricia, Educate, Agitate, Organize: 100 Years of Fabian Socialism, London, 1984.

Ratiu, Ioan, The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy: How an international elite is taking over and destroying Europe, America and the World, Richmond, 2012.

Rentoul, John, Tony Blair, Prime Minister, London, 2001.

Rockefeller, David, Memoirs, New York, NY, 2002.

Salter, Arthur, Memoirs of a Public Servant, London, 1961.

Shell, Tony, “Progressive Politics: Being Rid of The English,” September 2011.

Stone-Lee, Ollie, “1975 economic fears are laid bare,” BBC News, 29 Dec. 2005.

Sutherland, Peter, “A constructive attitude towards migration is a moral issue,” address to the International Eucharistic Congress, Dublin, 15 Jun. 2012.

Sutherland, Peter, in Select Committee on the European Union, House of Lords, “Inquiry on Global Approach to Migration and Mobility, Evidence Session No. 1, Wednesday 20 June 2012, 11.25 am, Witness: Mr Peter Sutherland, QQ 1-34”, uncorrected transcript, published 22 June 2012.

Ungerer, Horst, A Concise History of European Monetary Integration: From EPU to EMU, Westport, CT, 1997.

Wolf, Martin, “Business Books: Making history again/Review of ‘Privatising The World’ by Oliver Letwin,” Financial Times, 18 June, 1988.

Wollheim, Richard, “Socialism and Culture,” Fabian Tract No. 331, London, 1961.

Socialism exposed

Socialism exposed

by Cassivellaunus, 25 December 2012

Socialism is falsely projected by its sponsors, followers and supporters as a benign system aiming to raise the living standard of all citizens through equal access to resources, etc. In particular, it is said to be a working-class movement whose special concern is the welfare of the working classes.

In reality, none of the current main branches of Socialism such as Marxism (a.k.a. Communism), Social Democracy or Fabianism were founded by working-class people.

The founder of Marxism, Karl Marx, was born into a wealthy middle-class family, was employed as a journalist by liberal financial interests, lived off his inheritance and off the fast-dwindling fortune of his aristocratic wife and was financially supported for the rest of his life by his friend and collaborator Friedrich Engels, a wealthy textile magnate.

The founder of German Social Democracy, Ferdinand Lassalle, was similarly from a middle-class background and a lawyer by profession.

The founders of British Fabianism, too, were middle-class and had very little contact, if any, with working-class people.

Socialism and high finance

Particularly revealing are the connections of these key figures of Socialism with financial interests.

Both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had started their journalistic careers at the Rheinische Zeitung of Cologne, a radical paper owned by liberal financial interests (Ratiu, p. 23) and Marx was later in the pay of the New York Tribune.

The Tribune’s owner, Horace Greeley and its editor, Charles Anderson Dana were close collaborators of Clinton Roosevelt (Sutton, 1995, p. 45), a radical Democrat member of the well-known Roosevelt Clan whose main areas of interest were banking and politics.

Similarly, the founders and leaders of British Fabian Socialism had close links to liberal financial interests.

Fabian Society co-founder Hubert Bland, was a bank-employee-turned-journalist who worked for the London Sunday Chronicle, a paper owned by newspaper magnate Edward Hulton, formerly of the Manchester Guardian.

Bland’s friend Bernard Shaw was working for the London Pall Mall Gazette, which was edited by Rothschild associates William T Stead and Alfred (later Lord) Milner and owned by millionaire William Waldorf (later Lord) Astor. Shaw became a close friend of Astor’s son Waldorf and his wife Nancy, and married Charlotte, daughter of Horace Payne-Townshend, a wealthy Stock Exchange investor.

Shaw’s friend and fellow Fabian Society leader Sidney Webb married Beatrice, daughter of Richard Potter, a wealthy financier with international connections who served as chairman of the Great Western and Grand Trunk Railways of England and Canada. Beatrice was also a close friend of Rothschild associate and Conservative Prime Minister Arthur Balfour.

In other words, personal self-advancement took precedence over the advancement of the working classes who were to remain subordinated to a non-working, ruling elite with links to financial interests.

This situation has remained unchanged ever since as can be seen from the following examples:

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair, a Fabian Society member, earns £2 million a year for his contribution as Chairman of J P Morgan International Council (part of the Rockefellers’ JPMorgan Chase Bank) and has represented J P Morgan/Chase interests in Libya and other oil-rich states. Even before becoming Labour Party Leader and Prime Minister, Blair was a member of the World Economic Forum’s (a Rockefeller-dominated organisation) Global Leaders of Tomorrow group.

Tony Blair’s political mentor Lord (Peter) Mandelson is employed as a senior adviser to the Rothschild-Rockefeller-associated banking group Lazard.

Similarly, Germany’s leading Socialist Gerhard Schröder, a close collaborator of Blair and Mandelson, has been on the payroll of Rothschild operations like TNK-BP and Rothschild & Cie., Paris (Nauer, 2010), etc.   

A working-class ideology?

Another revealing aspect of Socialism is the nature and origin of its ideology of which writings like the Communist Manifesto are a case in point.

One of the earliest Socialistic publications was Clinton Roosevelt’s (see above) booklet The Science of Government (1841) which advocated a totalitarian system similar to the one suggested in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto (Sutton, 1995, p. 26).

In 1843, another booklet, entitled Principles of Socialism: Manifesto of Democracy in the Nineteenth Century, was published by a certain Frenchman of the name Victor Considerant while Marx and Engels were working for the Paris Franco-German Annals.

This booklet was reprinted in 1847 when Marx and Engels, who were then in exile in Brussels, joined the London Communist League. In November, the duo was commissioned by the League’s Central Authority to compose a document presenting a statement of its beliefs and aims.

Engels had already produced a draft document called The Principles of Communismin October and the duo used this as a basis for their Manifesto of the Communist Party – which was sent to London for printing in February 1848.   

As shown by W. Tcherkesoff in his Pages of Socialist History (1902), the Manifestois in fact based on Victor Considerant’s Principles of Socialism and therefore cannot be the original work of Marx and Engels (Sutton, 1995, pp. 38-40).

The ideology presented in the Manifesto was no less dubious. It is obvious from the text what the main concerns of its authors were. They speak of large, centrally-organised and -controlled industrial production, of centrally-controlled credit, of armies of industrial workers, of centralisation of means of communication and transport, etc.

It is important to note that none of the above were working-class objectives. Marx and Engels themselves in the same Manifesto tell us that the farmers, artisans and lower middle classes were “conservative,” even “reactionary,” seeking to “turn back the wheel of history.”

As the authors admit, the workers themselves, Socialism’s supposed “revolutionary” class, were totally opposed to mechanisation and industrialisation, “smashing machinery,” “setting factories ablaze” and “seeking to restore the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages” (Communist ManifestoMECW, vol. 6, p. 492).

In contrast, the declared goals of Socialism were quite obviously identical to those of the big industrial, banking and business interests. Like the Manifesto, Marx’s work Capital concerns itself with the establishment of a planned and efficient method of production in which large-scale labour was to be subordinated to a directing authority (Priestland, p. 38).

Who wanted armies of industrial workers, if not the big industrial interests? Who wanted the centralisation of banking, if not the big banking interests? Who wanted the centralisation of transport, if not the big railway and shipping magnates?

Socialism – the credo of international money interests

While we have no hard proof that Marx and Engels consciously promoted the interests of big industry, business and finance, they must have been aware that what they were proposing coincided with the aims of those very interests. 

At any rate, the links between leading Socialists and industrial interests are indisputable. As already noted, Engels was a textile manufacturer and so was Gustav von Mevissen, the co-founder of the Rheinische Zeitung.Other textile manufacturers involved with Socialistic movements were John Bright and Richard Cobden (who also held substantial railway interests in America).

Leading figures aiming to monopolise gold and diamond mining, steel, oil, railways and banking, as well as promoting large-scale industrial production and supporting various liberal and radical causes, included the Rothschilds, Andrew Carnegie, the Rockefellers, John Pierpont Morgan, Frederick Taylor and Henry Ford.

On their part, leading Socialists from the Fabian leadership to Lenin advocated policies that can only be described as large-scale state capitalism. Already in September 1917, Lenin had declared that State Capitalism was “a step towards socialism.” In April 1918, he reiterated his claim, announcing that “state capitalism is something centralised, calculated, controlled and socialised, and that is exactly what we lack … if in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism in Russia, that would be a victory” (“Session of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee,” 29 Apr. 1918, LCW, vol. 27, pp. 279-313).

In his booklet The State and Revolution, Lenin explains exactly what he meant by “State Capitalism.” In the “first phase” of Communist society, he declared,

All citizens are transformed into hired employees of the state, which is made up of the armed workers. All citizens become employees and workers of one national state “syndicate.”

The idea of government by “armed workers,” of course, was as much a lie as the myth of “equality” (see below) and was cynically used by Socialist parties to win workers’ support for the Socialist state.

In reality, no Socialist state has ever been a state consisting of “armed workers.” On the contrary, the Socialist power structure has always been as follows:

1. The State made up of a non-working ruling elite living in relative luxury.

2. A relatively well-off administrative bureaucracy supporting the State.

3. A standing army of which the higher ranks enjoyed certain social and economic privileges, while the rank and file were often employed as unpaid workers in construction work and other public projects.

4. The working class proper (industrial workers, agricultural labourers, etc.), toiling for the benefit of the State and, with some exceptions, living in relative poverty.  

In a telling move, Lenin introduced the methods of mass production designed by Frederick Taylor and Henry Ford to extract the maximum output from the workers for the benefit of large-scale industrialists, that were in vogue at the time in Liberal Capitalist America. Taylor had written that “In the past, Man has been first. In the future the system must be first,” which perfectly fitted the Communists’ own philosophy.

Taylor had also influenced Henry Ford, of Ford Motor Company. In addition to being a large-scale Capitalist manufacturer, Ford was a pro-Bolshevik with links to the American League to Aid and Cooperate with Russia, a Wall Street outfit whose Progressive vice-president Frederick C. Howe had authored Confessions of a Monopolist (1906) in which he proposed methods by which monopolists could control society (Sutton, 1974, pp. 19, 154).

It follows that Socialism is simply a form of repressive State Capitalism in which the State, that is, the ruling political clique, owns and controls everything while the rest of the population toils for the State in the vain hope that things might “get better” some day.

Not surprisingly, the same financial interests have been bankrolling Socialist projects ever since. For example, the Rothschilds and Rockefellers funded the Fabian Society’s London School of Economics (LSE) – established for the express purpose of advancing the Society’s objects – from the early 1900s, as well as financing other Fabian-influenced or -controlled universities like Harvard (which interlocked with the Rockefeller Foundation). The associated Ford and Carnegie interests bankrolled similar educational establishments, etc.

It must be noted that the same interests also bankrolled Socialist revolution. For example, Rothschild agent Jacob Schiff of the banking house Kuhn, Loeb, played a key role in the promotion of revolutionary propaganda among Russia’s armed forces, in providing funds for armed groups in Russia and in providing a loan to Alexander Kerensky’s Socialist government in the wake of the February 1917 revolution (Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 14, p. 961). The Rothschilds themselves arranged a loan for the Kerensky government (Ferguson, p. 448) which shows that Russia’s new Socialist regime – unlike that of the deposed Tsar – was agreeable to them.

What is essential to understand at this point is that the support financial interests have provided to Socialist causes has not been motivated solely by a desire to gain influence and power, or for purely “philanthropic” reasons, but also by ideological conviction.

The “Republican” Rockefellers are a case in point. J. D. Rockefeller Jr.’s eldest son, J. D. Rockefeller 3rd, authored The Second American Revolution (1973) in which he advocated collectivism under the guise of “cautious conservatism” and “the public good” (Sutton, 1974, pp. 176-7). His brothers Nelson, Winthrop, Laurance and David all attended the Fabian Socialist Lincoln School of New York, which was founded by their father. Predictably enough, Nelson took to quoting from a copy of Das Kapitalwhich he carried around (Morris, p. 340 in Collier, p. 262), while David wrote a senior thesis on Fabian Socialism at Harvard in 1936, studied at the Fabian LSE (Rockefeller, pp. 75, 81) and – like his brother Nelson – acquired a reputation for backing left-wing projects.

The Rockefellers, therefore, may be safely identified as Fabian Socialists. Should the question arise as to why Fabian Socialists like the Rockefellers are masquerading as “Republicans”, i.e., as conservatives, the answer is simple enough. As explained by Nelson Rockefeller himself, the conservative guise allows them to pursue left-wing agendas without arousing the suspicion of conservative business (Williams, p. 13 in Martin, p. 407) which might otherwise reject and oppose their policies.

Similarly, with rare exceptions like Lord Victor Rothschild who was a member of Britain’s (Socialist) Labour Party, the Rothschilds have been no overt supporters of Socialism. However, they have a long tradition of belonging to the political Left. In Britain, they were supporters of the centre-left Liberal Party throughout the 1800s, while in America, Rothschild representative August Belmont Sr. was chairman of the Democratic Party (Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 14, p. 342). 

Currently, the Rothschilds are discreetly supporting policies aiming to “reform” or otherwise “improve” capitalism. This trend is perhaps best exemplified by Lynn Forester, wife of Evelyn de Rothschild, personal friend of David Rockefeller, as well as director and CEO of E L Rothschild Ltd and supporter of the Democratic Party, who has come up with the ingenious idea of “rehabilitating” capitalism (Ashton, 2012). Not any capitalism, of course, but one called “inclusive capitalism.”

Needless to say, all such efforts can only serve to push the entire political system to the left, that is, in the direction of Socialism, while claiming to promote capitalism.

That this leftward drive is intentional becomes clear from the involvement of leading Socialists like Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson and Gerhard Schröder in projects like Policy Network, a global operation promoting World Socialism. 

“Socialism for others” or equality for the masses but not for the ruling classes

In addition to political dissimulation (an established Fabian Socialist tactic) as practised by leading corporate interests like the Rockefellers, there is another key factor often causing even the most inquisitive student of Socialism to overlook or ignore the obvious links between large corporations and the promotion of Socialism, namely, the apparent contradiction between the unique degree of wealth, influence and power held by corporate leaders and traditional Socialist tenets like “equality,” “fair distribution of resources,” etc.

This paradox is easily understood, however, if we look at the history of Socialism and realise that its leaders were never serious about being in any way “equal” to the masses.

The inconvenient truth is that the founding fathers of Socialism, from Marx and Lassalle to Bernard Shaw, all considered themselves entitled, by dint of their intellectual prowess and other supposed markers of “superiority,” to a better lot than the rank and file whose sole purpose was to submit and obey. For example, the expenditure of Marx’s household was well above that of a large working-class family – he even had enough spare cash to gamble on the Stock Exchange of which his friend and supporter Engels was a leading member – while Lassalle and Shaw were positively wealthy.

Nor is it just their lifestyles which expose their true stand. Their statements, too, make it very clear that the upper echelons of Socialism had no intention to share in the “equality” they preached.

Marx, for example, completely dismissed Socialist ideas like “equal right” and “fair distribution” as “obsolete verbal rubbish.” As he explained, even a system where each received an equal quantity of products in return for an equal quantity of labourwould lead to inequalityon account of the inherent inequality of individuals, that is, one man being stronger or weaker than another (it may be added, in Marx’s case, one being cleverer and more manipulative than another), etc., “one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on” (“Critique of the Gotha Programme,” 1875, MESW, vol. 3, pp. 13-30).

The above stand has been (explicitly or implicitly) taken by Socialist leaders – who invariably happen to be those who “receive more than others,” “are richer than others,” etc. – ever since. It is a stand that is clearly shared by the leaders of the corporate community.   

But, while the power of Socialist political leaders is relative, that of corporate leaders is near to absolute and is inevitably used by them to ensure that Socialist equality does not apply to themselves.

A classic example that is as instructive as it is illustrative, is the case of Baron Guy de Rothschild, the late head of the Rothschilds’ banking empire in France. Baron Guy, a close associate of the Marxist Jacques Attali, supported the presidential campaign of the Socialist François Mitterrand, helping him to become President in 1981. In the following year, Mitterrand nationalised French banks, including Baron Guy’s Banque Rothschild.

However, Mitterrand surrounded himself with Rothschild associates like the brothers Olivier and Bernard Stirn, Henri Emmanuelli and, above all, special presidential adviser for economic matters (and advocate of nationalisation) Jacques Attali, whom the Financial Times aptly described as “the philosopher-king of Mitterrand’s court” (“Men & Matters: Sherpa Attali,” FT, 7 Jun. 1982).

Moreover, as pointed out by Rothschild biographer Niall Ferguson, there was a twist in the story. Not only were Rothschild interests outside banking left untouched but the minister responsible for the nationalisation of the Rothschild bank was Henri Emmanuelli, a director of the Paris branch of the Rothschilds’ Swiss-based Compagnie Financière Edmond de Rothschild and the nationalisation – which entailed a substantial compensation from the state – was described by some observers as a blessing in disguise for a firm that was not doing particularly well at that moment in time (Ferguson, p. 497).

Finally, Mitterrand allowed the Rothschilds to open a new banking house and the application of Socialist principles of “equality” to the leaders of finance was soon a thing of the past that no Socialist president has dared to repeat.

Socialism and World Government

In line with monopolistic money interests, all branches of Socialism have advocated world government. However, the leading elements in this effort have been Fabianismand its ally Milnerism, which revolved around Lord Milner (a Socialist and Rothschild collaborator) and his associates in the Milner Group.  

The original Milner-Fabian idea of the division of the world among four or five big powers crystallised in the Fabian document International Government (1916) which formed the basis for the League of Nations, established in 1919 and bankrolled by Rockefeller and allied interests.

The League of Nations’ successor, the United Nations, was created in 1944 by the same Milner-Fabian elements. The 1945 San Francisco Conference where the UN Charter was written, was dominated by the Rockefeller-associated Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Rockefeller interests have played a leading role in UN affairs ever since (Ratiu, 2012).

Socialism and the New World Order

“New world order” a.k.a. “new international order,” “new social order,” “new economic order”, etc. and world government go hand in hand, the former referring to a new system of global politics and economy, and the latter to the body that is to govern that system.

Naturally, new world order came to be promoted by the same Milner-Fabian elements that were also behind the drive for world government, in particular, those involved in the League of Nations project.

Among the first proponents of a new world order were Britain’s Fabian Socialists who produced several documents like “Labour’s war Aims” (1917) and “Labour and the New Social Order” (1918), in which they prescribed sweeping Socialist policies for the British Empire and the world, including nationalisation of land, industries and transport, international legislation, an international court, international economic controls and a supranational authority (Martin, p. 44).

A key supporter of the Fabian new world order was US President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat and political theorist who advocated centralised power and who believed that “in fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same” (“Socialism and Democracy,” 1887).

Tellingly, Wilson was a close collaborator of financial interests like the Morgan and the Rockefeller Groups (who had backed his 1912 presidential campaign), as well as of Fabian and Milnerite elements like presidential adviser Walter Lippmann, a member of both the Fabian Society and the Milner Group. Under their influence, he became one of the driving forces behind the League of Nations.

The concept of a new world order continued to be vigorously promoted by Milneriteelements associated with Wilson’s League such as Alfred Zimmern, who gave lectures on the subject in the early 1930s, while in 1935 General Jan Smuts declared that the League “marks the visible and tangible coming of a new world order”. On its part, the Fabian Socialist British Labour Party declared that “The Labour Party will not abandon, now or ever, the vision of a New World Order” (Labour Party Annual Conference Report, 1939).

The crowning moment of the New World Order project came in 1974 when the Rockefeller-controlled United Nations (the world-government-to-be) passed the Declaration on a New International Economic Order which stated:

“We, the members of the United Nations … solemnly proclaim our united determination to work urgently for the Establishment of a New International Economic Order” (Resolution A/RES/S6/3201, 1 May 1974).

The President of the UN General Assembly at the time was the Algerian SocialistAbdelaziz Bouteflika and the Rockefeller Group had close links with the UN leadership through various channels like Leo Pierre, the Chase Manhattan (the Rockefellers’ bank) vice-president responsible for relationships with the UN or directly, through Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim with whom David Rockefeller was on friendly terms (Rockefeller, p. 248).  

The financial interests behind the new-world-order agenda also become apparent from the connections of other international key figures promoting it, from Henry Kissinger to Tony Blair (“US need for new world order,” The Times, 27 Feb. 1969; “What Kind of New World Order?”, Washington Post, 3 Dec. 1991; “Blair returns to new world order,” BBC News, 4 Jan. 2002). 

A former US Secretary of State and presidential adviser, Kissinger has been a close friend and associate of the Rockefellers since the 1950s when he worked for the Rockefeller brothers David and Nelson. He has also been identified as a Soviet collaborator by American and French sources (de Villemarest, 2004, vol. 1, p. 34).

The Socialist International

Another key instrument through which Socialism has pursued its agenda of world government/new world order is the Socialist International (SI). The SI was formed by Britain’s Fabian Society in 1951 to co-ordinate worldwide co-operation between Socialist parties and other organisations including Socialist governments.

At the 2-4 June 1962 Oslo Conference, the SI declared that: 

“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 so that it may become more and more effective”.

This policy was promoted by SI members around the world. For example, the 1964 manifesto of the British Labour Party (a dominant element in the SI system) read: “For us world government is the final objective and the United Nations the chosen instrument …”

As the UN is a Rockefeller operation, is it clear that the SI and affiliated organisations are promoting a world government (represented by the UN) controlled by international financial interests.

Socialism and the European Union

Like other Socialist projects, the idea of a United States of Europe originated in liberal capitalist circles, notably those around Richard Cobden, and was endorsed by leading Socialists like Engels and Wilhelm Liebknecht, founder of the Social Democratic Workers’ Party of Germany (SDAP) (Liebknecht, 1889).

By 1914, when the Fabian Society was exploring international government, the idea had become part of the official policy of the Fabian-created and -controlled Independent Labour Party (ILP) (“Review of the Week,” Labour Leader, 1 Oct. 1914). Other Socialists promoting a United States of Europe from the 1920s were the Austrian Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, the Pole Joseph Retinger and the Englishman Arthur (later Lord) Salter, a former Fabian Society member.  

After World War II, the project was resuscitated by the same elements and it was imposed on Europe through the US Marshall Plan that set the economic and political unification of Europe as a precondition for financial aid.

As with the UN, the Marshall Plan was devised, promoted and implemented by elements linked to Rockefeller interests operating within the US State Department in collaboration with Socialist regimes such as that of British Prime Minister Clement Attlee, whose Fabian Socialist Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin chaired the 13 July 1947 conference that established the Committee for European Economic Co-operation (CEEC), later called Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC).

In his Philadelphia speech dubbed “Declaration of Interdependence” of 4 July 1962, US President J F Kennedy declared:

“The United States looks on this vast enterprise [the European Economic Community] with hope and admiration … To aid its progress has been a basic object of our foreign policy for seventeen years” (Monnet, p. 467). 

Kennedy’s adviser was Rockefeller associate Henry Kissinger and the State Department had been dominated by the Rockefellers’ Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) since the early 1940s when the State Department set up the Advisory Committee on Postwar Foreign Policy whose vice-chairman was CFR member and leading new world order advocate Sumner Welles (Smoot, p. 8).

Marshall Aid funds were funnelled through the CFR-controlled European Cooperation Administration (ECA) and the American Committee for a United Europe (ACUE) to various European organisations, the vast majority of which were founded and/or run by Socialists and fellow left-wingers like Jean Monnet, Paul-Henri Spaak, Joseph Retinger, Hugh Gaitskell, Denis Healey and others. (Aldrich, 1995; Dorril, 2001).  

Like the UN, the EU was run by Socialists from the time of the first President of the Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community (which later became the European Parliament), the Belgian Socialist Paul-Henri Spaak, and has remained dominated by Socialists such as Roy Jenkins (former Fabian Society chairman), Jacques Delors, Romano Prodi, Javier Solana, Lord Mandelson (another leading Fabian Society member), Baroness Ashton and many others.

Socialism and dictatorship

All major forms of Socialism – Marxism, Soviet Communism, Social Democracy and Fabianism – have been associated with dictatorship. In part, this has to do with the individual personalities of Socialist founders. Karl Marx was universally described as “domineering” and “fanatical authoritarian” by various sources from police reports to statements by his employers and political rivals. Ferdinand Lassalle, the founder of German Social Democracy, was similarly dictatorial and the same applies to the founders of Soviet Communism like Lenin as well as to the founders of Fabian Socialism like Sidney and Beatrice Webb and Bernard Shaw (Ratiu, 2012).  

However, an equally important role has been played by Socialist ideology itself. Marx saw Capitalism as the dictatorship of the middle over the working classes and aimed to replace it with what he termed “dictatorship of the proletariat”. In his The State and Revolution (1917), Lenin went to extraordinary lengths to dismiss democracy as a temporary and dispensable phase in the transition from Capitalism to Communism. Similarly, Lassalle advocated an authoritarian collectivist state (albeit one headed by a monarch).

On their part, the Fabians, who were great admirers of dictators like Lenin and Stalin, believed in an authoritarian regime run by a body of economists and other “experts” in which they would discreetly pull the strings from behind the scenes (Martin, p. 340) – a goal they shared with their Milnerite allies. 

At national level, Socialism’s dictatorial tendencies are evident in policies like state-enforced mass immigration and multiculturalism, which are implemented without the consent of the populations concerned. Internationally, it is reflected in the Socialist drive for the establishment of an authoritarian world government. Socialists, their liberal collaborators and their like-minded financial backers have played leading roles in the creation of un-democratic institutions and organisations like the United Nations, the European Union and the Mediterranean Union.

Socialism and political violence

From its 19th-century beginnings, Socialism advocated the violent overthrow of the existing order by a group of armed revolutionaries. Marx called for the arming of revolutionary workers with “musket, rifles, cannon and ammunition” (Marx, 1850), while Engels defined revolution as a reign of terror, as “the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon,” declaring that the victorious party had to maintain this rule by means of “the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries” (“On Authority,” AlmanaccoItaliano, published Dec. 1874).

This was put into practice by Lenin and his Bolshevik comrades in Russia’s Communist Revolution of October 1917 – which followed Kerensky’s February Revolution – and has inspired many other Socialist movements and groups ever since, for example, the German Baader Meinhof Gang (which was controlled by East Germany’s Marxist intelligence chief Markus Wolf), the Italian Red Brigades, the Peruvian Shining Path and the Irish Republican Army (IRA), later known as Provisional IRA (PIRA).

While not directly involved in acts of violence, more “moderate” forms of Socialism, notably Fabianism, are clearly linked to Socialist groups advocating and practisingviolence for political ends.

For example, speaking at the 2010 “Anti-Racism Day” conference at the London School of Economics, honorary chairman of the Fabian-created National Union of Students (NUS), Ray Hill, declared:  

“Stopping extremism in this country is fundamentally about winning the arguments. Although, of course, in some cases that is not always possible … where you cannot win the arguments, it’s a question of winning the fight. If that means violence, that means violence …”

Hill’s stance was backed by Ashok Kumar, the LSE Student’s Union Education Officer, who said:

“If the English Defence League [an organisation campaigning against the spread of Islam] or any other fascist organisation attempted to apply their violent ideology on any community, the right of that community to defend itself is enshrined in law” (Young, 2010).

Kumar, of course, was being disingenuous. Hill’s remark is not about self-defence but about deliberately using violence to “win the argument” that the Left would otherwise lose. Moreover, in Socialist practice violence is often applied or threatened “pre-emptively,” with the obvious intention to suppress political opposition. One infamous instance of this was in February 2010 when the National Union of Students (NUS) blocked a proposed debate on multiculturalism at the University of Durham, threatening to organise a “colossal demonstration” with Unite Against Fascism (UAF) that might result in “students being hurt”.

With seven million members, the Labour-dominated NUS is a big bully who knows how to throw its weight about. Its allies are not far behind. The UAF is a far-left pressure group which, like the NUS, brands everybody as a “fascist” who disagrees with Socialist theory or practice. UAF is also known for its acts of “extreme violence” leading to injuries to police officers, rival protestors and members of the public (Smith, 2010).

Disturbingly, the UAF has also been linked to Anti-Fascist Action (AFA), another far-left group set up by Red Action, an “anti-fascist” organisation preaching “Socialism through terrorism” and known for its involvement in IRA bombings (Seaton, 1995).

Co-founded in 1922 by the LSE and London University (another Fabian-controlled institution with which the LSE had merged earlier), NUS is also a close collaborator of the Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS). The University Islamic Societies affiliated with FOSIS have been described as “conveyor belts” for extremism and have been linked with convicted Islamic terrorists (Afzal, 2012; Gilligan, 2013).

What emerges is a seamless continuum stretching from the high seat of FabianSocialism at the LSE to “anti-fascist” street gangs to the shadowy world of international terrorism.

Of particular interests is that the “anti-fascist” LSE and IRA have been linked with fascistic dictatorships like that of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi. The regime provided the LSE with hundreds of thousands of pounds (Pollard, 2011), while at the same time training and supplying the IRA with arms (Harnden, 2011).

Gaddafi, of course, was an Arab Socialist and Chairman of the African Union, an organisation co-founded by member of the Fabian Society’s Colonial Bureau JuliusNyerere (Ratiu, p. 447). According to leaked diplomatic cables, Gaddafi’s son Saifal-Islam had arranged for 400 “future leaders” of Libya to receive leadership and management training at the LSE (Roberts, 2011).  

Another line of contact between the Fabian Society and Gaddafi’s murderous regime was provided by Tony Blair, a Fabian Society member, who was in close touch with Gaddafi on behalf of J P Morgan who managed Libya’s oil money (Spencer, 2011).

Thus, whatever boundaries there may have been between Socialism and international financial interests, both Western and non-Western, they are becoming very difficult to detect, to the point of being virtually invisible.

Socialism and genocide

The Marxist concept of Socialist revolution entailed the division of society into two classes, the revolutionary and the reactionary, of which the latter was to be physically eliminated in order to give way to those who were fit for the new Socialist world order (Class Struggles in France, p. 114). Engels went even further, declaring that whole nations – deemed “reactionary” – were destined to perish in a future Socialist world war and this would be a “step forward” (“The Magyar Struggle,” 13 Jan. 1849, MECW, vol. 8, p. 227).

Unsurprisingly, Stalin’s Socialist regime executed 681,692 persons for “anti-Soviet activities” in 1937-38 (one year) alone (Pipes, 2001, p. 66) and the total number of its victims has been estimated at between 20 million (Conquest, 1991) and 62 million(Rummel, 1990). Similarly, the victims of China’s Socialist regime under Mao Zedong have been estimated to number over 70 million (Chang & Halliday, 2005; Rummel, 2005).

A less well-known but equally horrific case of genocide was that of between five and six million German men women and children who perished as a result of deportation, mistreatment and starvation at the hands of Allied authorities between 1944 and 1950 (de Zayas, p. 111; Bacque, pp. 119, 204; Dietrich, pp. 107-8, 140-1).

While the chief architect of the plan resulting in this deliberate genocide was US Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr., a supporter of the American League for Industrial Democracy (LID) – the London Fabians’ “provincial society” – the collaborators in this crime included Communist Russians and British Socialists like Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin and Minister for Germany and Austria John Hyndwho, as his predecessor Lord Salter tells, kept the British-occupied population on daily starvation rations of 1,240 calories (Salter, p. 302).

The advent of mass immigration from the Commonwealth into Britain in the 1950s and 60s presented the Socialist Labour Party with another opportunity to engage in genocidal social engineering. The Party abandoned its traditional British supporters and sided with the newcomers against the indigenous population.

Ethnic relations in British cities, whose local councils were controlled by Labour, were seen in terms of the position of black (non-white) people throughout the world (Banton, pp. 106-7) and the Labour policy of “race equality” was aimed at changing the “power relations between white and black people” in favour of the non-white immigrant population – as evident from Labour programmatic papers like A Policy for Equality: Race (ILEA, 1983).

Before long, a new theory of “replacement immigration” was advanced, which was based on the idea that Europe’s falling population had to be replaced with non-Europeans. This was proposed by the United Nations Population Division in 2000and has been promoted by Socialist organisations like the Labour Party under a number of pretexts ranging from “making Britain more multicultural” to “creating economic growth”.  

The result of these policies has been that Britain currently has a non-white population of about 10 million and is expected to become a white-minority country by the end of the century. A parallel situation is found in Europe and America. Amounting to 25 per cent of the world’s total population in 1900, Europe’s population has dramatically fallen to 11 per cent and is expected to further decrease to 7 per cent by 2050(Browne 2000). 

To what extent can we say that this is a Socialist agenda? Let us recall that the LSE was founded by the Socialist Fabian Society in 1895 for the express purpose of advancing its objectives and promoting Socialism. We have seen that the LSE Student’s Union and its ally, the National Union of Students (another Fabian-created outfit) proscribe citizens concerned about mass immigration, multiculturalism and Islamisation as “fascists” who are to be silenced through violence. 

LSE chairman Peter Sutherland is the head of the UN Migration Forum, a post to which he was appointed by Rockefeller associate Kofi Annan. During a House of Lords inquiry in June 2012, Sutherland called on the European Union to “do its best to undermine the national homogeneity” of European states (Sutherland, 20 Jun. 2012). The week before, he had said that a projected migration of 500 million Africans into Europe was “a good thing” (Sutherland, 15 Jun. 2012).

Sutherland also doubles as honorary chairman of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission. In 2008 he chaired the Trilateral’s European meeting at Paris, which endorsed French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s Mediterranean Union project aiming to merge the European Union with North Africa and the Middle East, describing it as a “model for the world.”

The “development” of Africa has always been a key plank in Fabian policy which has been relentlessly pursued through Fabian organisations like the Fabian Africa Bureau, the Fabian Colonial Bureau, the Movement for Colonial Freedom and the African Union. Africa’s population explosion itself, whose spillover into Europe Peter Sutherland (as UN special representative for migration and development) so enthusiastically welcomes, is in no small measure the result of the activities of foreign-aid organisations like Oxfam, co-founded in 1942 by Gilbert Murray, a friend of Fabian luminaries like H. G. Wells and Bernard Shaw. The latter was a vocal advocate of the fusion of the races, declaring that “the future is to the mongrel” (Holroyd, vol. 3, pp. 283-4).

Particularly disturbing are recent attempts to lend “scientific” legitimacy to this essentially anti-white, racist ideology. For example, a study presented in 2010 to the British Psychological Society by Cardiff University claimed that mixed-race people are “genetically fitter” and “more attractive”. The methods and findings of such studies are not only highly dubious, but they cannot be unconnected with the fact that Cardiff University operates in partnership with the UN and other Rockefeller-associated outfits like the World Health Organisation (WHO) and IBM.

Another leading organisation involved in the promotion of mass immigration and population replacement with strong links to the LSE and other Socialist institutions, organisations and individuals, as well as to the left-wing sections of the corporate community, is the Oxford Martin School

(This article was last modified on 30 September 2013)

See also Unite Against Socialism

Afzal, Hasan, “Is FOSIS Training the Violent Extremists of Tomorrow?,” Huffington Post, 3 Feb 2012.

Aldrich, Richard J., “OSS, CIA and European Unity: The American Committee on United Europe, 1948-60,” International History Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, London, Nov. 1995; also in Diplomacy & Statecraft, Vol. 8, No. 1, London, March 1997, pp. 184-227.

Ashton, James, “Lady and the banks … why Lynn Forester is trying to rehabilitate capitalism,” Evening Standard, 19 Sept. 2012.  

Browne, Anthony, “The last days of a white world,” Observer, 3 Sept. 2000.

Chang, Jung & Halliday, Jon, Mao: The Unknown Story, New York, NY, 2005.

Collier, Peter & Horowitz, David, The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty, London, 1976.

Conquest, Robert, The Great Terror: A Reassessment, Oxford University Press, 1991.

De Villemarest, Pierre, Facts & Chronicles Denied To The Public, vols. 1 & 2, 2003; English trans. Slough, Berkshire, 2004.

Dorril, Stephen, MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations, London, 2001.

Encyclopaedia Judaica, Jerusalem, 1971.

Ferguson, Niall, The House of Rothschild, Vol. 2, New York, NY, 2000.

Gilligan, Andrew, “Baroness Warsi and the demons of hate,” Daily Telegraph, 27 Apr 2013.

Harnden, Toby, “Libyan arms helped the IRA to wage war,” Daily Telegraph, 4 Apr. 2011.

Holroyd, Michael, Bernard Shaw, 3 vols., London, 1991.

Kissinger, Henry, “What Kind of New World Order?”, Washington Post, 3 Dec. 1991.

Lenin, V. I., Collected Works (LCW), 45 vols., Moscow, 1960-70.

Liebknecht, Wilhelm, Preface to “On the Political Position of Social-Democracy,” London, 1889.

MacElroy, “A Webb of Lies,” The Free Market, Feb. 2000, vol. 18, no. 2.

Martin, Rose, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A., Chicago, IL, 1966.

Marx, K. & Engels, F., Collected Works (MECW) [English], 50 vols., London, 1975-2004.

Marx, K. & Engels, F., Selected Works (MESW) [English], 3 vols., Moscow, 1969.

Marx, Karl, “Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League,” March 1850, Marx, K. & Engels, F., Selected Works (MESW) [English], 3 vols., Moscow, 1969, vol. 1, pp. 175-85.

Monnet, Jean, Memoirs, English trans., London, 1978.

Nauer, David, “Die Gerhard Schröder AG,” Basler Zeitung, 10 March 2010.

Pipes, Richard, Communism: A Brief History, London, 2001.

Pollard, Stephen, “Libya and the LSE: Large Arab gifts to universities lead to ‘hostile’ teaching,” Daily Telegraph, 3 Mar. 2011.

Priestland, David, The Red Flag: Communism and the Making of the Modern World, London, 2009.

Ratiu, Ioan, The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy: How an international elite is taking over and destroying Europe, America and the World, Richmond, 2012.

Roberts, Laura, “LSE struck deal to train Libya’s future leaders,” Daily Telegraph, 3 Mar. 2011.

Rockefeller, David, Memoirs, New York, NY, 2002.

Rummel, Rudolph, Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917, New Brunswick, NJ, 1990; http://www.hawaii.edu

Rummel, Rudolph, “Reevaluating China’s democide to be 73,000,000,” 20 Nov. 2005.

Seaton, Matt, “Charge of the New Red Brigade,” Independent on Sunday, 29 Jan. 1995. 

Smith, Lewis, “Police blame anti-fascists for violence,” Independent, 22 Mar. 2010.

Smoot, Dan, The Invisible Government, Boston, MA, 1962.

Socialist International, “The World Today: The Socialist Perspective,” Declaration of the Socialist International at the Council Conference held in Oslo on 2-4 June 1962.

Spencer, Richard; Blake, Heidi; Swain, Jon, “Tony Blair ‘visited Libya to lobby for J P Morgan”, Daily Telegraph, 18 Sept 2011.

Sutherland, Peter, “A constructive attitude towards migration is a moral issue,” address to the International Eucharistic Congress, Dublin, 15 Jun. 2012.

Sutherland, Peter, in Select Committee on the European Union, House of Lords, “Inquiry on Global Approach to Migration and Mobility, Evidence Session No. 1, Wednesday 20 June 2012, 11.25 am, Witness: Mr Peter Sutherland, QQ 1-34”, uncorrected transcript, published 22 June 2012.

Sutton, Antony C., Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, first published in New York, 1974, reprinted in Forest Row, East Sussex, 2011. 

Sutton, Antony C., The Federal Reserve Conspiracy, first published in 1995, reprinted in Carson City, NV, 2005.

Trilateral Commission (Europe), Meeting Summary, 32nd European Regional Meeting, Paris, 7-9 November 2008.

Walters, Simon and Owen, Glen, “Blair’s Africa charity bids for share of £8 bn foreign aid budget”, Daily Mail, 13 Nov 2011. 

Williams, David C., “Rockefeller in Washington,” The Progressive, Feb. 1959, pp. 11-13.

Young, Calumn, “Anti-racism day kicks off at the LSE,” The Beaver, 24 Oct. 2010.

Revealed: the Socialist International, world government and international finance

Revealed: the Socialist International, world government and international finance

by Cassivellaunus, 20 May 2014

The Socialist International is a London-based organisation set up by the Fabian Society and the Labour Party for the purpose of establishing a world government controlled by international financial interests.

Already in the late 1800s, the Fabian Society (FS) – which had close links to the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers and other leading bankers and industrialists – set out to achieve control over Britain’s working and middle classes as a means to impose state control over resources, industry and finance.

The key organisations through which the FS aimed to achieve this objective were: the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), the Independent Labour Party (ILP), the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and the Labour Representation Committee (LRC), later renamed The Labour Party.

The FS and its Labour front came very close to achieving their objective in the early 1940s when – as Britain’s second-largest party – Labour was invited by the ruling Conservatives to join a coalition government for the duration of the war. As part of the government, Labour did its best to impose a regime of partial nationalisation, centralised control and planned production.

After winning the 1945 general elections, Labour was able to carry over the war-time system of State control into peace.

Labour’s Socialist experiment quickly fell out of favour with the British people, resulting in a sound defeat in the following elections.

However, while losing power at home, Labour was able to take a leading role on the international scene.

As most of Europe’s Socialist parties had been closed down by the German authorities during the war, Socialist ringleaders fled to London where they were harboured by the Labour Party. After the war, Labour was involved in reconstructing Socialist parties all over Europe, particularly in West Germany which at the time was under British and American occupation.

In this way, Labour became de facto leader of International Socialism, a position it exploited to the full to achieve its goal of taking worldwide control of the Socialist movement.

The socialist-corporate drive for world government

A long-cherished aim of the Fabian Society and the Labour Party was world government, an aim they shared with their financial supporters and promoted through writings like Leonard Woolf’s International Government (1916) as well as through organisations like the League of Nations and the United Nations.

The Rockefellers, in particular, had spent millions of dollars financing Fabian projects like the London School of Economics (LSE) and the League of Nations, and played a central role in founding and financing the League’s successor, the United Nations.

The key organisations involved in the creation of the United Nations were: (1) the Special Subcommittee on International Organisation, a subcommittee of the US Advisory Committee on Postwar Policy, (2) the War and Peace Studies (WPS) group and (3) the Informal Agenda Group (IAG). All three were staffed with members of the Rockefeller-controlled Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) – which dominated the US State Department – and over 40 CFR operatives, including Nelson Rockefeller and Rockefeller lawyer McCloy (see below), were at the 1945 San Francisco Conference which founded the UN.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has officially acknowledged that the Rockefeller family has provided “immense support for the League of Nations and the United Nations over the years” (UN Department of Public Information, SG/SM/14498, 10 Sept 2012). 

The UN’s links to Socialism were absolutely clear from inception, with the appointment of leading Belgian Socialist Paul-Henri Spaak as President, of Norwegian Labour Party leader Trygve Lie as Secretary-General, of Russian Socialist (Communist) Arkady Sobolev as Under-Secretary-General for Political and Security Council Affairs, etc.

The UN and the Socialist International

The Labour Party’s National Executive Committee had already started to study the problem of organising an international association of Labour and Socialist parties during the war. In 1945, while the UN was being set up in America, a Socialist Conference of the United Nations was held in London, where a committee was appointed to set up a temporary London-based bureau to organise international Socialist conferences.

In May 1946, Labour convened a conference of Socialist parties in Clacton-on-Sea where the Socialist Information and Liaison Office (SILO) was set up for the above purpose. SILO was housed in the Labour Party’s headquarters and financed by it.

In November 1947 the Antwerp conference set up the Committee of the International Socialist Conference (COMISCO) with headquarters in London, to function between conferences. A sub-committee of COMISCO was set up in the following year to function in the intervals between COMISCO meetings, while SILO was renamed “The Secretariat of the International Socialist Conference”.

Morgan Phillips, General Secretary of the Labour Party and long-time Fabian Socialist, was elected chairman of COMISCO which, again, shows that this was a Fabian-Labour project.  

Finally, at a London conference in March 1951, COMISCO proposed that the International Socialist Conference at the next meeting should change its name to “The Socialist International,” COMISCO to “The Council of the Socialist International” and the COMISCO sub-committee to “The Bureau of the Socialist International”.

This was approved at the Frankfurt-on-Main conference of July 1951 and the Socialist International was constituted as an organisation consisting of a Bureau, a Council, a Congress and a Secretariat, for the purpose of co-ordinating the policies and activities of all Labour and Socialist parties in the world.

From inception, the SI affirmed its unflinching support for the United Nations. Its very first declaration, “Aims and Tasks of Democratic Socialism” (1951) stated:

“Democratic socialism regards the establishment of the United Nations as an important step towards an international community; it demands the strict implementation of the principles of its Charter”.

This was reiterated in subsequent declarations such as that of the 1962 Oslo Conference:

“The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government. As a step towards it, they seek to strengthen the United Nations so that it may become more and more effective … Membership of the United Nations must be made universal”.

The directing force behind the SI, of course, was the Fabian Society operating through its Labour Party front whose position was made very clear in its election manifestos:

“For us world government is the ultimate objective and the United Nations the chosen instrument” (Labour Party manifesto, 1964).

With over six million members, Labour was the largest Socialist party outside Communist Russia and China. In addition, it controlled the Socialist parties of key European countries like Germany and France, whose leaders had fallen under Labourinfluence during their exile in London. 

With Labour General Secretary Morgan Phillips as chairman and Guy Mollet(General Secretary of the French Socialist Party) and Erich Ollenhauer(Chairman of the German Social Democratic Party) as vice-presidents, Labourwas in a position to dominate the International and steer it in the desired direction of world government.

Labour’s and the International’s declared intention of making the UN their chosen instrument of world government suggests that they really represented the banking and industrial interests who had set up the UN.

Notable among these were the Rockefellers and associates who, either directly or indirectly (through the Council on Foreign Relations, the State Department, etc.) were instrumental in drafting the blueprint for the UN, for conducting the conferences that organised the UN, for writing the Charter that established the UN and for financing both the conferences and the UN itself. Even the land on which the UN’s New York headquarters was built was provided by the Rockefellers and they have been involved in the UN project ever since.

Socialism and international finance: how Labour governments have been bankrolled by the Rockefellers and associates through the US State and Treasury Departments and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)

US President F D Roosevelt was a close collaborator of the Rockefellers and represented the interests of their Council on Foreign Relations (Dall, p. 192). In 1939 he allowed the CFR, with funds from the Rockefeller Foundation, to do research and make recommendations to the US State Department on (1) Security and Armaments Problems, (2) Economic and Financial Problems, (3) Political Problems and (4) Territorial Problems. CFR members were involved in all State Department policies ever since (Smoot, p. 8).

In 1946, left-wing US President Truman (Roosevelt’s running mate) arranged the Anglo-American Loan in the amount of $4.33 billion, which benefited Labour’sAttlee Government.

In 1947, Labour’s Attlee Government drew over $2.75 billion from US funds in addition to one-quarter billion dollars from the Rockefeller-controlled IMF (created at the 1944 UN Monetary and Financial Conference).

In 1969, Labour’s Wilson Government raised $4 billion, 1 billion of which came from the IMF.

In 1976, Labour’s floundering Callaghan Government asked the IMF for a humiliating bailout of $4 billion (£2.3 billion) (Stone-Lee, 2005) and put Britain’s economy under IMF supervision, etc.

All the above were arranged by Fabian Chancellors under Fabian Prime Ministers.

The Marshall Plan: how the Rockefellers bankrolled

European Socialism

The European Recovery Programme (ERP) a.k.a. Marshall Plan was initiated in 1948 by CFR members Will Clayton and George F. Kennan based on David Rockefeller’s CFR report “Reconstruction in Western Europe”.

According to US Government sources, the Marshall Plan “provided markets for American goods and created reliable trading partners”.

Unfortunately, the Marshall Plan also financed European Socialism. The bulk of the $13 billion Marshall Aid went to:

Britain ……..$3.29 bn
France …….$2.29 bn
Germany …..$1.44 bn
Italy ……….$1.20 bn

Britain was run by the Fabian Socialist Labour Party; France was run by a coalition government of Communists, Socialists and “Christian Democrats”; Germany was run by Fabian Socialist Ernest Bevin and Americans like US High Commissioner John J McCloy, a Rockefeller front man (a partner at the Rockefeller-associated New York law firm Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy); Italy was run by Alcide de Gasperi, a former member of the Social Christian movement.

If to the four main Marshall Aid recipients we add minor ones like Belgium (Socialist Party), Denmark (Social Democrat), Luxembourg (Christian Social, Socialist Workers, Democrat), Norway (Labour Party) and Sweden (Social Democrat), we can clearly see that most of Marshall Plan money – over 76 per cent – went to Socialist and associated left-wing governments, thereby benefiting International Socialism.

No surprise then, that Labour and its collaborators among European parties were instrumental in mobilising Socialist support for the Marshall Plan.

When some Socialist parties correctly saw the Plan as a tool by which US money interests sought to influence or control Europe’s economies and expressed opposition to it, Labour convened a separate conference – held on 22 and 23 March 1948 – consisting of pro-Marshall Plan parties, thereby ensuring “unanimous” support for the Plan.

The Socialist International and the European Union

The idea of a United States of Europe had been a Liberal Capitalist scheme from the time of Richard Cobden, a textile manufacturer with railway interests in America, and was soon adopted by Socialists of all shades from Friedrich Engels to Vladimir Lenin to Liberal (and later Labourite) Arthur Ponsonby.

This was part of a larger plan by Anglo-American interests to unite the British Empire with America and Western Europe. Federal Union was one of the organisations set up for this purpose in 1938 by Percival Brundage – a partner at the Anglo-American consultancy practice Price Waterhouse & Co. and later budget director to President Eisenhower (a Rockefeller collaborator) – and enjoyed the support of prominent Fabian Socialists like Barbara Wootton and William Beveridge(another Rockefeller collaborator).   

After the Second World War, the idea was resuscitated by the same Anglo-American Liberal Capitalists and their Socialist collaborators and made a precondition of Marshall Aid.

Already on 27 May 1947, William Clayton, US Department of State (USDS) Deputy-Secretary for Economic Affairs, had announced the suggestion of USDS economics “experts” for the creation of a European Economic Federation.

Next day, Clayton, the director of Marshall’s Policy Planning Staff George Kennanand other USDS division heads held a meeting with Secretary of State George Marshall at which they decided that Europe’s economic borders should be removed (Agnew & Entrikin, p. 129).

On 5 June 1947, Marshall delivered a speech at Rockefeller-controlled Harvard University in which he spoke of Europe’s alleged requirements for food and other products from America for the following few years and warned of “the consequences to the economy of the United States” if these requirements were not met.

In reality, Europe was in no need of American food. Marshall himself in his speech stated that European farmers produced an ample supply of food and, as it turned out, Russia, who refused American aid, managed quite well.

The real problem was that Europe’s new Socialist economies were floundering due to state control, management and planning, especially in Socialist-controlled towns and cities which is why, by the First Conference of the Socialist International, European Socialists came to backtrack on total state planning, declaring that “Socialist planning … is compatible with the existence of private ownership in important fields, for instance in agriculture, handicraft, retail trade and small and middle-sized industries”.

The impact of Socialist state control on the economy was becoming particularly clear in Fabian-Labour-controlled Britain. Therefore, Attlee’s Fabian Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin rushed to welcome Marshall’s speech and chaired the Conference for European Economic Co-operation on 13 July 1947 which established the Committee for European Economic Co-operation (CEEC), later called Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC).

At this stage, the plan had not yet been officially approved. It was only on 3 April 1948, after much propaganda by leftist business and labour internationalists (Agnew & Entrikin, p. 13), that the US Congress finally passed the Economic Cooperation Act, approving the plan.

The Preamble to the Act stated very clearly: 

“It is further declared to be the policy of the people of the United States to encourage the unification of Europe” (US Congress, Economic Cooperation Act, 3 April 1948).

The very purpose of the OEEC was to allocate among West European countries the funds provided by the Marshall Plan, which shows that Marshall Aid was inextricably linked with European unification through economic integration.

The following year, Bevin claimed that:

“There is a strong body of public feeling in the United States which expects Europe, with or without the United Kingdom, to get together politically and economically, as a price for the continuance of United States aid. This school of thought has in particular many adherents in the Economic Co-operation Administration … we should be attacked in the United States if we could be shown to be preventing European unification” (CAB/129/37/4, “Council of Europe,” Memorandum by Bevin, 24 October 1949).

There was, of course, no need for anyone to attack Bevin for preventing European unification. He himself had earlier called for a Western European Union backed by “American power and wealth” (see National Archives, CAB/129/32, Memorandum by Bevin, 7 Jan. 1949, CAB/129/37, Memorandum by Bevin, 18 Oct. 1949, etc.).

Moreover, official Labour Party statements tell us exactly what kind of European Union Bevin and the Labour Party wanted:

“If the United States of Europe is indeed to succeed and to benefit its peoples, it can only fully succeed if all the countries of Western Europe commit themselves, as our electors committed themselves in 1945, to the belief that Socialism is the hope of us all” (Labour Party Conference 1947). Note, also, the designation “United States of Europe”.

As Britain received the largest slice of the Marshall Aid cake, its political leaders had to be seen to be backing the European project stipulated in the Marshall Plan.

So, again, it comes as no surprise to find that Labour was the driving force behind a United Europe and that the British leaders of Labour-created Socialist International and their continental collaborators, notably SI vice-president Guy Mollet, were early advocates of European union or federation.

Indeed, the International acted as a propaganda mouthpiece to drum up support for the European project. At its First Congress, it declared its support for the creation of a united Europe, stating that “national sovereignty must be transcended”. The SI later set up a permanent Sub-Committee on Propaganda Technique to promote agendas like European union.

  

The structure of the Socialist International: note the close links to the Council of Europe

and the European Coal and Steel Community (later European Union), bottom left (Rose, p. 13).

The Council of Europe, which had been set up in London in 1949 to promote European union, was already dominated by British Fabians and Labourites and their collaborators among European Socialists. For example, the first president of the Council’s Assembly was the Belgian Socialist Paul-Henri Spaak, who had belonged to Fabian-Labour circles in war-time London and was also a leading figure in the UN (see above).

To ensure its control over the Council of Europe, the Socialist International set up a special Socialist Inter-Group sitting on the Council Assembly, which was staffed with many leading SI members (Rose, p. 11). For example, the Group’s French president was SI vice-president Guy Mollet, a leading advocate of European unification.

Similarly, while Spaak was the first president of the Assembly (later European Parliament) of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the SI set up its own Socialist Group within the ECSC, to ensure a common Socialist policy on the ECSC along SI lines (ibid.).

The identity of leading figures in this network of organisations as well as the interests bankrolling subversive initiatives like the movement for a united Europe, reveal who really was behind the project.

For example, P-H Spaak was a member of the influential Spaak family of Schaerbeek, Belgium, who were long-standing friends of the Rothschilds; Rene Mayer, cousin of the Rothschilds and former manager of their business empire in France, served as president of the ECSC High Authority, etc.

In 1946, Spaak was appointed President of the UN General Assembly.

In 1949, he was appointed President of the Council of Europe Assembly.

In 1950, he was appointed President of the European Movement.

In 1952, he was appointed President of the ECSC Assembly.

In 1957, he was appointed Secretary-General of NATO, etc.

We have seen that the UN was intended as a form of world government and was funded by Rockefeller and associated interests.

Similarly, the European Movement was an organisation campaigning for a united Europe and was co-funded by the American Committee for a United Europe (ACUE) which was itself funded by Rockefeller, Ford and associated interests with close links to the US Government (Aldrich, 1995; Evans-Pritchard, 2000).

The fact that both the UN and European unification were devised and funded by the same interests shows that the European project was part of a wider plan to rule the world by means of a world government.

The appointment of the Socialist Spaak to leading positions in both the UN and the ECSC shows that the political and economic unification of Europe was part and parcel of the corporate-backed Socialist drive for a One-World State.

Moreover, once the European project was in place, the same combination of Socialist politicians and left-wing corporations pushed for British entry.

In 1965, under the Labour Government of former Fabian Society chairman Harold Wilson, Rothschild, Rockefeller and associated interests (Shell, Ford, FIAT, BP) set up the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) to represent their interests (the CBI’s first director-general was John Davies, vice-chairman and managing director of the Shell-BP marketing venture, Shell-Mex and BP).

In the following year, Wilson decided that Britain should join the European Community and launched a campaign to bring this about, placing the country on a sure course for membership and surrender of national sovereignty.

Leading Socialists and associated financial and industrial interests represented by Rothschild-Rockefeller outfits like the European Enterprise Group (EEG, founded by the CBI, above) and the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT) – which also interlock with the Rockefellers’ Trilateral Commission – have retained strong influence on the EU (Ratiu, pp. 297-9).

Meanwhile, the EU has proved to be a gigantic scam extracting billions from taxpayers and business to fund institutions and organisations that promote its agenda, notably left-wing universities and think-tanks, as well as a wide range of internationalist projects aiming to establish a European superstate and world government.

The Fabian Society itself continues to be funded by subversive EU entities like the European Commission and the Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS), an EU-wide operation co-funded by the European Parliament, which works for a Socialist Europe. 

The Socialist International and the Bilderberg Group

The Bilderberg Group developed from meetings organised in 1952 by Fabian Socialists in collaboration with financial interests represented by the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) a.k.a. Chatham House and its US sister organisation, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Its first conference was held in 1954 at the Bilderberg Hotel near Arnhem, the Netherlands.

In addition to international money interests represented by David Rockefeller, members of the Rothschild family and associates, Socialist International leaders were involved in the Bilderberg project from the start. Notable among these were members of the Fabian Society executive committee Hugh Gaitskell and Denis Healey.

Healey was a member of the Fabian Society from the early 1940s to the early 1980s. As a member of the Fabian Society’s International Bureau Advisory Committee, he was a leading figure in Fabian Society and Labour Party foreign policy as well as being instrumental in organising the meetings that created the Socialist International, writing the first draft of its Declaration of Socialist Principles, while also writing speeches for its chairman Morgan Phillips.

Healey became a long-time member of the Bilderberg steering committee and Chatham House councillor. Another leading figure involved in the Bilderberg project was SI vice-president Guy Mollet.

The involvement of leading Socialists and international bankers in the Bilderbergshows that the Group was a kind of liaison organisation between International Socialism and International Finance designed to co-ordinate foreign policy among politicians and money interests on both sides of the Atlantic.

In particular, the Bilderberg Group has played a pivotal role in the creation of international organisations pursuing the world government agenda of corporate interests, like the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) which later became the “Common Market” and the EU. Bilderberg co-founder Denis Healey has admitted that the Group aims to achieve a “united global governance”.

In addition to the Rockefellers, Shell (Rothschild) interests who co-founded the Bilderberg have maintained a leading role in the Group and associated projects at national and international level.

From 1971 to 1974, Labour peer and Shell head of research, Lord Victor Rothschild, served as founding director of the Central Policy Review Staff (CPRS), the cabinet think-tank advising the Government.

Despite the “expert” advice, Britain’s Socialist-controlled economy was left in tatters and had to be “saved” in 1976 by Bilderberger Healey (who served as Chancellor) by conveniently asking for a $4 billion bailout from the Rockefeller-controlled IMF (see above).

Unconcerned with the poor results of “expert” Shell advice, Labour Prime Minister and leading Fabian Society member James Callaghan in 1978 appointed Geoffrey Chandler, a left-wing Shell executive of over 20 years, as director-general of the National Economic Development Council (NEDC), a Fabian-Labour outfit tasked with co-ordinating the interests of CBI, Trade Union Congress (TUC) and Government. 

Bilderberger Healey himself was appointed NEDC chairman and in 1979 joined Arthur Knight, Bilderberg director and member of the CBI economic committee, on the Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission, etc.

All this clearly exposes Socialism as the handmaid of monopolist corporations cynically feigning “social and environmental responsibility” as a smokescreen for undemocratic agendas.

Although the stated objectives of the Socialist International’s very first declaration were to “liberate peoples from dependence on a minority which owned or controlled the means of production”; to prevent “the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few”; and to create “a system in which the public interest takes precedence over the interest of private profit”, it has achieved the opposite, effectively helping to create a world system in which economic power is concentrated in the hands of a few multinational corporations of which leading Socialists (notably, Denis Healey, Tony Blair, Lord Mandelson, Gerhard Schroder, etc.) have been and are close collaborators.

Agnew, John and Entrikin, J Nicholas, The Marshall Plan Today: Model and Metaphor, London, 2004.

Aldrich, Richard J., “OSS, CIA and European Unity: The American Committee on United Europe, 1948-60”, International History Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, London, Nov. 1995.

Callaghan, John, The Labour Party and Foreign Policy: A History, Abingdon, Oxon, 2007.

Dall, Curtis B., Franklin Roosevelt, My Exploited Father-in-Law, 1968, 1982 ed., Institute for Historical Review, Torrance, CA.

De Villemarest, Pierre, Facts & Chronicles Denied To The Public, vol. 2, “The Secrets of Bilderberg”, 2003, English trans. Slough, Berkshire, 2004.

Evans-Pritchard, Ambrose, “Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs”, Daily Telegraph, 19 Sept. 2000. 

Healey, Denis, The Time of My Life, London, 2006.

Martin, Rose, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A., Chicago, IL, 1966.

Ratiu, Ioan, The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy, Richmond, 2012.

Rose, Saul, The Socialist International, London, 1955.

Sibilev, Nikolai, The Socialist International, English translation, Moscow, 1984.

Smoot, Dan, The Invisible Government, Boston, MA, 1962.

Socialist Affairs: The Journal of the Socialist International, London, 1971-2014.

Socialist International Information, London, 1951-1970.

Stone-Lee, Ollie, “1975 economic fears are laid bare”, BBC News, 29 Dec. 2005.

The Fabian Society: the masters of subversion unmasked

The Fabian Society are pure evil, Sadiq Khan is an executive member, so is Kier Starmer. Every member bar one of the Tony Blair Cabinet was a Fabian (including the late Sir Jeremy Hayward, Head of Civll Service)...

The Fabian Society: the masters of subversion unmasked

by Cassivellaunus, 31 March 2013

Fabianism is a radical London-based movement initiated in the 1880s for the purpose of subverting the existing order and establishing a Socialist World Government controlled by its leaders and by the financial interests associated with them.

London at the time was a centre of liberal capitalism – itself a subversive movement – as well as of radical left-wing agitation which sought to subvert the former. The main radical organisation promoting Socialism in England was the International Working Men’s Association (IWMA, a.k.a. “First International”), established in 1864 by Karl Marx.

Marx’s doctrines were initially only available in German and French, and had little impact on the British public. His disciple Henry Hyndman was the first to popularise the teachings of Marx and other German Socialists in the English language. Hyndman was also the founder in 1881 of the Social Democratic Federation (Laidler, p. 186).

The elements responsible for founding the Fabian Society were themselves influenced by Marxism and belonged to Social Democratic Federation circles. What set the Fabian Society apart from earlier Socialist organisations like the IWMA and SDF was the method by which it sought to attain its objective. While other Socialists talked of revolution, the Fabians resolved to build Socialism gradually and by stealth.

The Fabian Window was commissioned by Shaw in 1910 and is currently located at the London School of Economics. Though its theme purports to be humorous, the fact is that, as admitted by Bernard Shaw, humour or what he described as “freely laughing at ourselves” was a distinguishing habit of the Fabians (Pease, p. 34). In fact, humour was a tactic used by Fabians to conceal the deadly earnest of their intentions.

According to one of its leaders, the Fabian Society was “organised for thought and discussion, and not for electoral action which it leaves to other bodies, though it encourages its members, in their individual capacities, to play an active part in the work of these other bodies” (G. D. H., Cole, 1942). Wolf in sheep’s clothing The subversive nature of the Fabian project is illustrated by the Fabian Window, a stained-glass composition showing Fabian leaders Edward R. Pease, Sidney Webb and Bernard Shaw (in the green coat) forging a new world out of the old, while other Fabians kneel worshipfully before a stack of Fabian writings.    Webb Memorial Trust 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!” and which expresses the Fabians’ plan to destroy and reconstruct society along Fabian lines.

Indeed, there is nothing humorous about a semi-secret organisation working to destroy Western civilisation. Moreover, the Fabian Window is undeniably symbolic and as such it is based on fact: despite claims to being “scientific,” Socialism proved to be riddled with internal inconsistencies and contradictions rendering commitment to its tenets a matter of faith rather than reason. 

As observed by the economist P. T. Bauer, Socialism turned out to be a kind of faith-based messianic religion that promised salvation on earth (Bauer, p. 176). In the Fabian case, making Socialism (or Fabianism) into a quasi-religious movement was a conscious objective of the Fabian leadership as shown by Shaw’s comments to the effect that the Fabians “must make a religion of Socialism” (Henderson, p. 488). Other Fabian leaders similarly spoke of Socialism as a “new social religion”. Thus, the Fabians’ adulatory attitude towards Fabian writings depicted in the Window accurately portrays the cult-like nature of Socialism in general and of Fabian Socialism, in particular.

The window also shows, in the background (above the globe), the Fabian “coat-of-arms” consisting of a wolf wearing a sheepskin and bearing a red standard with the initials “F.S.” Again, this symbolism is undeniably based on the fact of the Fabian tactic of “permeation” and of achieving its ends by stealth.

Finally, the Society’s Iranian logo may well be a hidden reference to the reconstruction of the world order in line with international oil interests. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later British Petroleum) was among the corporate members of the Royal Institute of International Affairs a.k.a. Chatham House (King-Hall, p. 140), an organisation co-founded by members of the Fabian Society and the Society has retained close links to oil interests (see below).

The Fabians and subversive money interests

The main body through which the Fabian Society operated in the beginning was the Liberal Party, this being the centre-left party at the time. However, the Fabians’ involvement with Liberal politics also linked them with liberal capitalist interests, regular contact with whom was nurtured through various Fabian creations such as the Coefficients Dining Club (Quigley, pp. 137-8; cf. M. Cole, p. 118).

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: (1) by monopolising finance, economy and politics; and (2) by controlling the growing urban working class.

The first aim was to be achieved by the centralisation of capital, means of production, etc. The second was to be gained through organising the workers and through promises of a larger share in resources. These aims coincided with those of the Socialist movement of which the Fabians aimed to become the leading element.

As pointed out by H. G. Wells, big business was by no means antipathetic to Communism as “the larger big business grows the more it approximates to Collectivism” (Wells, p. 100). Similarly, Joseph A Schumpeter, who taught David Rockefeller at Harvard, wrote:

The true pacemakers of socialism were not the intellectuals or agitators who preached it but the Vanderbilts, Carnegies and Rockefellers (Schumpeter, p. 134). 

Indeed, we find that the core of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) consisted of monopolistic capitalist policies like the centralisation of capital and the organisation of workers. 

Marx and Engels had begun their career as journalists working for liberal capitalist interests. Marx later worked for the New York Tribune, whose owner, Horace Greeley and editor, Charles Anderson Dana were close collaborators of Clinton Roosevelt (Sutton, 1995, p. 45), a radical Democrat member of the well-known Roosevelt Clan whose main areas of interest were banking and politics and who were close allies of the Vanderbilts.

The Fabian Society not only adopted Marx and Engels’ policies but was closely connected with the same kind of interests:

Hubert Bland, a bank-employee-turned-journalist, worked for the London Sunday Chronicle, a paper owned by newspaper magnate Edward Hulton, formerly of the Liberal Manchester Guardian. Bland was a co-founder of the Fabian Society in 1884 and became a member of its executive and its long-serving treasurer. He also recruited his friend and fellow journalist Bernard Shaw.

Shaw was working for the London Pall Mall Gazette, where leading Liberal William T. Stead served as editor and Alfred (later Lord) Milner as his assistant. Both Stead and Milner were close to diamond magnate and Rothschild associate Cecil Rhodes and were involved in the formation of the influential secret organisation known as the Milner Group. Having been recruited to the Fabian Society by his friend Bland in 1884, Shaw recruited Annie Besant and his friends Sidney Webb, Sydney Olivier and Graham Wallas in 1885 and 1886.

Tellingly, the Fabians were also adept at securing a higher social and financial position for themselves – which shows that the “equitable share of natural and acquired advantages” and the “complete substitution of public property for private property” preached in the Fabian Basis and elsewhere were not regarded by Fabians as binding on themselves.

Shaw’s friend and fellow Fabian Society leader Sidney Webb married Beatrice, daughter of Richard Potter, a wealthy financier with international connections who served as chairman of the Great Western and Grand Trunk Railways of England and Canada.  Beatrice was also a close friend of Rothschild associate and Conservative Prime Minister Arthur Balfour. The Great Western Railways (GWR) supported Webb’s fledgling London School of Economics by booking courses for members of its staff at the school and Webb also used his wife’s other connections to further his Fabian agendas.  

Shaw himself married Charlotte, daughter of Horace Payne-Townshend (a wealthy Stock Exchange investor), who was one of the financial backers of the Fabian Society. Shaw was employed by millionaire William Waldorf (later Lord) Astor, owner of the Pall Mall Gazette, and became a close friend of the latter’s son (and Milner Group leader) Waldorf and his wife Nancy. Interviews with both Shaw and Webb promoting Socialist ideas were published by the Pall Mall and St. James’s Gazettes.

As Shaw, Webb, Olivier and Wallas became the Fabian Society’s dominant “Big Four,” it becomes clear that the Society originated as a private organisation run by elements in the employ of media outlets representing liberal capitalist interests.

Indeed, the Society’s key financial backers included John Passmore Edwards, an associate of textile manufacturer and leader of the Liberal “Manchester School,” Richard Cobden himself. For example, in the 1890s, Passmore Edwards donated £10,000 for a new building for the Fabians’ London School of Economics (LSE) (Webb. p. 93).

The Fabians were also linked with the Manchester School through Harold Cox, a member of the Fabian Society who was a follower of Manchester Liberalism, secretary of the Cobden Club and editor of the influential quarterly Edinburgh Review, as well as a collaborator of Sidney Webb (Webb, p. 502).

It follows that both Karl Marx and the Fabian Society were bankrolled by industrial interests with links to the left-wing Manchester School and the media world.

These already powerful interests were allies of the Rothschild banking family which had close links to the shadowy world of Manchester’s left-wing media, industry and finance: the Rothschilds’ first port of call in England had been Manchester, where the group’s patriarch Nathan Meyer started his career in the textile trade. They had a long tradition of support for Liberal causes, several leading members of the group having served as Liberal members of parliament.

The Fabian Society and Rothschild interests. The Fabian Society was in close touch with the Rothschilds both directly and through go-betweens like Lord Arthur Balfour. The Balfours were among the chief representatives of Britain’s money power and were involved in the creation of organisations advancing its interests from the Anglo-American League and the Pilgrims Society to Imperial College and the League of Nations. While his brother Gerald was President of the Board of Trade, Arthur Balfour served as President of the Local Government Board and later as Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. While in these posts, he conferred on a regular basis with both Lord Natty Rothschild and the Fabian leadership and used his position to advance their agendas.

Lord Rothschild himself was personally involved, with Sidney Webb, in the restructuring of the University of London into which the Fabians’ London School of Economics (LSE) was incorporated in 1898. He also provided funds for the LSE and served as its third president, after his relative Lord Rosebery (Webb, pp. 182, 214).

The LSE continues to maintain close links with Rothschild and allied interests. For example, LSE’s Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment is funded by the Grantham Foundation, whose founder Jeremy Grantham of the investment management firm Grantham, Mayo & Otterloo (GMO) was an economist at Rothschild-controlled Royal Dutch Shell; the Grantham Institute’s advisory board includes Sir Evelyn de Rothschild of EL Rothschild Ltd. and Vikram Singh Mehta of Shell Companies, India; Rothschild, Shell, Barclays, Goldman Sachs, J. P. Morgan and Morgan Stanley are members of the LSE Careers Patron Group; Peter Sutherland, chairman of Goldman Sachs International, is chairman of the LSE, etc.

The Fabian Society and the Tata Group. One of the Fabians’ links to industrial interests was the Indian textile magnate Jamsetji Tata whom Sidney and Beatrice Webb helped to set up a company town around his newly acquired steel works at Bombay, where the Fabians had set up a local Fabian society. In 1912, Tataendowments funded the Sir Ratan Tata Department at the LSE, which later became the Department of Social Sciences, whose first lecturer was Fabian Society member and later New Fabian Research Bureau chairman Clement Attlee (West, 2012).

The Fabian Society and the Rowntree Clan. Another Fabian line of connection with industrial interests were the chocolate manufacturers Rowntree’s. The company’s head Joseph Rowntree, who had founded various charitable trusts in 1904, financed the Fabian Society’s Commission for the Prevention of Destitution and from 1915 provided funds for the general work of the Society as well as for its Research Department and special inquiries, including the one that produced International Government (Pugh, p. 129); his son Seebohm Rowntree, who in addition to being an industrialist was also an avid social reformer, collaborated with Beatrice Webb on the Royal Commission on the Poor Law 1905-9 (Webb, p. 332), and Rowntree trusts have funded Fabian projects ever since.

The Fabian Society and Cassel interests. The Fabian Society was also connected with the international banker and financier Sir Ernest Cassel, who was an associate of Rothschild, Schiff and Morgan interests. Cassel was persuaded by his friend Lord Richard Haldane, a member of the Fabians’ Coefficients dining club and, from 1925, Fabian Society member, to bequeath large sums to the LSE (Butler, p. 19).

When the Sir Ernest Cassel Educational Trust was set up in 1919, Haldane, Liberal leader Herbert Asquith (a friend of Cassel and Bernard Shaw) and Lord Balfour (a close friend of Beatrice Webb and Shaw) were appointed trustees. In 1924, the Trust provided substantial grants to the LSE, establishing among others the Sir Ernest Cassel Chair of International Relations (later International Relations Department).

The Fabian Society and Rockefeller interests. The Fabian Society has been particularly close to the Rockefellers who are covert Fabian Socialists. David Rockefeller wrote a sympathetic senior thesis on Fabian Socialism at Harvard (“Destitution Through Fabian Eyes,” 1936) and studied left-wing economics at the Fabian Society’s London School of Economics. Not surprisingly, the Rockefellers have funded countless Fabian projects, including the LSE. Already in the late 1920s and 1930s, the LSE received millions of dollars from the Rockefeller and Laura Spelman Foundations, becoming known as “Rockefellers baby”.

The Rockefellers’ Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) operating within the US State Department was responsible for designing America’s post-war foreign policy. A key element of this policy was the $13 billion Marshall Aid that funded Europe’s Socialist governments, including Britain’s own Fabian Socialist Labour government run by Prime Minister Clement Attlee, former chairman of the New Fabian Research Bureau.

Another Rockefeller outfit bankrolling Fabian projects was the International Monetary Fund (IMF), established in 1944 along with the World Bank. Its chief architect was US Under-Secretary of the Treasury Harry Dexter White, a covert Communist, who had close links to the Rockefeller-associated Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR).

The IMF provided several loans to Labour (Fabian) governments:

·           $250 million to the Attlee Government in 1947 (Martin, p. 77);

·           $1 billion to the Wilson Government in 1969 (Martin, p. 109);

·           $4 billion to the second Wilson Government in 1976 (Stone-Lee, 2005).

Another important loan of $4.34 billion was negotiated in 1946 by Fabian economist John Maynard Keynes and facilitated by his friend and collaborator Harry Dexter White who operated within the US Treasury as well as the IMF. All these loans were organised under successive Fabian Chancellors Hugh Dalton, Roy Jenkins and Denis Healey.

The Fabian Society itself continues to be funded by subversive entities like the European Commission and the Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS), an EU-wide operation co-funded by the European Parliament, which works for a Socialist Europe. 

The Society also operates in partnership with global companies like Pearson, a long-time Lazard and Rothschild associate. Pearson has been a major stockholder in the banking group Lazard from the early 1900s. Lazard was identified by the historian Carroll Quigley as the principal bank of the Anglo-American Establishment, a left-wing international alliance consisting of the British Milner Group (revolving around Rothschild interests) and America’s Eastern Establishment (revolving around J. P. Morgan and Rockefeller interests).

Like Pearson, Lazard is a left-wing operation with a long history of support for left-wing causes. It has been a supporter of America’s Democratic President Barack Obama and has hired leading Fabian Socialist Peter Mandelson as senior adviser.

Fabian control over the working classes

The monopolistic elements in liberal capitalism had been able to secure control over resources (oil, gold, steel, etc.) with the collaboration of the ruling upper classes whom they were gradually replacing. However, the emergence of a less malleable new class of industrial workers was threatening to disrupt the established balance of power in industrial societies.

Therefore, leading liberal capitalists – the big industrial, business and banking interests (Rothschild, Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc.) – came to support social reform as a means of appeasing the restive working classes and ultimately bringing them under their control. The Fabian Society was the key organisation set up for this purpose.

The Fabian leadership had long discovered that Britain’s working classes “were not going to rush into Socialism” – as candidly admitted by Fabian Society Secretary Edward R. Pease (Pease, p. 88). Therefore the first task of the Society was to capture the working classes for its own ends.

Following the Fabian slogan, “educate, agitate, organise,” skilful propaganda and agitation manipulated the public into accepting and backing Fabian policies like social reform programmes. In other words, the Fabians literally decided what the public ought to want and then made sure that the public either wanted, or appeared to want, what the Fabians had chosen for it (Pease, p 84).

Having indoctrinated the masses with Fabian ideas, the next phase was organising them and a key step in this direction was the formation of the Independent Labour Party (ILP).

The ILP was founded at a Fabian conference in 1893 through the merging of over seventy local Fabian societies and was headed by Fabian Keir Hardie, who had earlier co-founded the Second International with Friedrich Engels.

Once the new organisation had been formed, the Society spared no effort to increase its influence in branches of the ILP and the Social Democratic Federation all over the country. Tellingly, as in other matters, it modelled itself on the Milner Group’s British South Africa Company (BSAC), comparing the Fabian Society’s control over the British people with that of the BSAC’s control over the South African natives.

For example, in 1897, the Fabian Executive announced that like the “Chartered Company” in Africa, the Fabian Society will capture and control the British natives “for its profit and their own good” (Fabian News, Sept. 1897, quoted by Pugh, p. 58).

The ILP’s aim of controlling the working classes for Fabian purposes is also evident from Beatrice Webb’s Diary and other Fabian documents. By 1913, she was able to 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 (M. Cole, p. 167).

The above demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that Socialism (including Fabianism) has been imposed on the working classes by outside interests. This fact was openly admitted by Lenin who used it to suppress all spontaneity in the working-class movement and bring it under the control of his own “Social-Democratic” (later Communist) Party (see Lenin, What Is To Be Done? and Walicki, p. 294).

On their part, ordinary Labour supporters – in so far as they were aware of the Fabians’ activities – thought of them as unprincipled spiders, spinning webs to entrap honest Socialists (M. Cole, p. 87). In one of his more lucid moments, Bernard Shaw concurred, referring to himself and the Society as “magnificent parasites” (Holroyd, vol. 3, p. 226). 

The Fabian Society and the Labour Party

Another Fabian instrument for entrapping the unsuspecting masses was the Labour Party. Set up in 1900 by Keir Hardie and fellow Socialists, the party was known as the “Labour Representation Committee” for the first few years of its existence.

That it was not representing labour is evident from the middle-class Fabians involved in its formation who included Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb and Edward R. Pease. From inception, Pease, one of the Fabian Society founders, sat on the Labour Party Executive followed by Sidney Webb and others.

The Fabian Society currently describes itself as a “think-tank.” However, as a think-tank operating within the Labour Party the Society is, by definition, a body of experts providing advice and ideas on specific issues which are then implemented as Labour Party policy.

Indeed, from inception, the Fabian Executive described Fabians as the “brainworkers” of the Labour Party (Fabian News, XXIX (5), Apr. 1918 in Pugh, p. 138). In the 1950s, Fabian Society Secretary Margaret Cole described the Society as the “thinking machine of British Socialism” (Pugh, p. 236). The Society continues to define itself as being “at the forefront of developing ideas and public policy on the left” (http://www.fabians.org.uk/about/, last accessed 31 March 2013).

It is bad enough for a major political party like Labour to have its public policy inspired by a semi-secret private organisation with a subversive agenda. However, the Fabian Society does much more than provide the Labour Party with ideas. From inception, the Labour constitution, manifesto and party policy were all personally written by various Fabians like Arthur Henderson and Sidney Webb.

The “Memorandum on War Aims” by Fabian Society co-founder Sidney Webb became the Labour Party’s policy statement.

The pamphlet “Labour and the New Social Order,” also by Webb, was adopted as the Labour Party manifesto.

“The Aims of Labour,” by Webb and fellow Fabian Arthur Henderson became accepted Labour Party policy (Pugh, p. 138), etc.

It follows that the relationship between the Fabian Society and the Labour Party was not a purely intellectual one, but very much physical, given that Fabians literally wrote Labour’s policy statements, manifestos and party programmes.

The ongoing physical involvement of the Fabian Society in the running of the Labour Party shows beyond reasonable doubt that the Society has retained complete control over the Labour Party ever since. Particularly disturbing is the striking overlap between the Fabian Society and the Labour Party leadership.

·     Fabian percentage in the Labour Party membership. The Fabian Society has 7000 members 80 per cent (5,600) of whom are members of the Labour Party. This amounts to about 3 per cent of the general Labour Party membership (about 190,000 in 2010).

·     Fabian percentage in the total number of Labour MPs. The Fabian percentage increases dramatically in the higher reaches of the Labour Party. From inception, Labour candidates standing for parliament included a fair number of Fabian Society members and the Society has retained a large proportion – about 50 percent – among Labour candidates since the 1940s.

In 1945, 393 Labour candidates were elected to Parliament, out of whom 229 were Fabian Society members.

In 1997, 418 Labour candidates were elected, out of whom 200 were Fabian Society members.

·     Fabian percentage in Labour governments. By the time we come to the Labour Party leadership, the proportion of Fabians comes close to 100 per cent. The 1966 Labour Cabinet had twenty-one members out of which seventeen were members of the Fabian Society and this proportion has remained constant down to the present. Nearly the entire 1997 Labour Cabinet (including Prime Minister Blair) was composed of Fabians (“The Fabian Society: a brief history,”Guardian, 13 Aug. 2001).

·     From inception, leading Fabians like Ramsay MacDonald, Arthur Henderson, James (“Jim”) Middleton, Morgan Phillips and others served as General Secretaries of the Labour Party.

·     All Labour governments from 1924 to 1997-2010 have consisted almost exclusively of Fabian Society members;

·     All Labour Prime Ministers have been members of the Fabian Society;

·     All (or nearly all) leaders of the Labour Party have been members of the Fabian Society;

·     All (or nearly all) deputy leaders of the Labour Party have been members of the Fabian Society;

·     Future Labour leaders are groomed in the Young Fabians, the Fabian Society’s under-31s section, who, like the Society itself are affiliated to the Labour Party. Unsurprisingly, the Young Fabians have been described as the “Labour MPs of the future”;

·     Fabian publications continue to provide the basis for Labour Party policy (Harrop, “Fabian review of the year”; Jenkinson, Remaking the State, etc.);

·     Labour leaders continue to profess their allegiance to Fabianism and the Fabian Society:

In April 2006, while unveiling the Fabian Window at the LSE, Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair said that a lot of the values the Fabians stood for would be “very recognizable” in today’s Labour Party(Blair, 2006).

Important Labour Party events are routinely announced, launched or discussed at Fabian Society conferences. For example, Ed Miliband announced his bid for the party leadership at a Fabian Society conference in May 2010; Labour politicians and activists met under the auspices of the Fabian Society to discuss party policy (Lawson, 2012).

In January 2013, at the Fabian Society’s New Year Conference, Labour leader Ed Miliband declared that he is “an avid reader of Fabian pamphlets” (Jenkinson, “Ed Miliband’s speech”), etc.

The Fabian Society and its total control over British society

The Fabians’ drive for total control was not restricted to the working classes. The Society’s declared aim was to permeate all classes, from the top to the bottom, with “a common opinion in favour of social control of socially created values” (Barker, 1915).

Needless to say, all such opinions propagated by the Fabian Society were the opinions of the Fabian Society itself, not of the general public, the propagation of Fabian opinions being the Fabians’ express objective:

“The Fabians are associated to spread the following opinions held by them …” (Pease, p. 28, our emphasis).

This, of course, once again shows that the Society was not representing the views, interests, or wishes of the general public but those of its own members and leaders.

For this purpose and in addition to politics, the Society set out to control education, culture, economy, the legal system and even medicine and religion.

That this was deliberate and premeditated is evident from numerous statements by Fabian leaders. For example, Bernard Shaw declared the aim of Fabian educational reform as entailing the creation of a Minister for Education, with “control over the whole educational system, from the elementary school to the University, and over all educational endowments” (Shaw, “Educational Reform,” 1889).

This was accomplished through a wide range of interconnected organisations, societies and movements:

·     Education: councils like the London County Council, university societies and schools like the London School of Economics, Imperial College and London University.

·     Culture: the New Age movement, the Central School of Arts and Crafts, the Leeds Arts Club, the Fabian Arts Group and the Stage Society.

·     Economy: the London School of Economics, the Royal Economic Society, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR).

·     Law: the Haldane Society (named after Fabian Society member Lord Haldane).

·     Medicine: the Socialist Medical League.

·     Religion: the Labour (later Socialist) Church movement, the Christian Socialist Crusade, the Christian Socialist League, the Christian Socialist Movement, etc.

All this, of course, was achieved as gradually and stealthily as possible, as enshrined in the Fabian “Basis,” a document containing the Fabian Society’s general rules, which all members were required to sign and abide by, which stated that Socialism was to be achieved through persuasion and “the general dissemination of knowledge” (M. Cole, pp. 21, 338).

As explained by Sidney Webb, all changes leading to Socialism had to be “gradual, and thus causing no dislocation, however rapid may be the rate of progress” (M. Cole, p. 29).

The Fabian Society and dictatorship

It is essential to understand that from the time of Karl Marx, all branches of Socialism have looked on democracy not as an end in itself but merely as a means of achieving Socialism which is invariably described as an authoritarian, centrally-controlled system.

Indeed, Marxism and derivative systems such as Marxism-Leninism actually regard democracy as antithetical to Socialism which is referred to as “dictatorship,” for example, “dictatorship of the proletariat” – or the dictatorship of the ruling Socialist party supposedly representing the working class over other classes. 

Accordingly, Marx and Engels called on their fellow Socialists in Germany to ally themselves with the Liberal Democrats in order to dislodge the Conservatives from power, and then turn against their former allies, including by force of arms, to establish Socialism (“Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League,” March 1850, MESW, vol. 1, pp. 175-85).

Similarly, Lenin in his booklet The State and Revolution (1917), went to extraordinary lengths to dismiss democracy as a temporary and dispensable phase in the transition from Capitalism to Communism:

“Democracy is of great importance for the working class in its struggle for freedom against the capitalists. But democracy … is only one of the stages in the course of development from feudalism to capitalism, and from capitalism to Communism” (Lenin, LCW, vol. 25).

As in Marxism, democracy in Leninism was believed to be a feature of the capitalist state that would become “unnecessary” in Socialist society.

Being less outspoken than Continental Socialists, the Fabians were naturally far more careful in their language. Yet, it is absolutely clear from Fabian statements, both written and spoken, that they followed the general Socialist line according to which democracy was only a means of achieving Socialism.

The Fabians’ very first election manifesto for the Labour Party (written by Shaw and Webb) envisaged a government run by a body of “experts” instead of politicians (Pugh, p. 81). This was echoed by Pease who spoke of “qualified rulers” as a precondition for a Socialist State (Pease, p. 200).

That these “experts” and “qualified rulers” could not have been anything but Fabians is evident from numerous statements by Fabian leaders. For example, Shaw expressed his wish to make the Fabians “the Jesuits of Socialism” (Martin, p. 16), while H G Wells who was number four on the Fabian Executive (after Webb, Pease and Shaw) proposed to turn the whole Society into a ruling order similar to the “Samurai” in his A Modern Utopia.

While, initially, the Fabians kept their views about democracy to themselves, the rise of dictatorial leaders in Soviet Russia and elsewhere eventually prompted them to come into the open and show their true colours.

Already in 1927, Fabian leader Bernard Shaw openly declared that Fabians must get the Socialist movement “out of its old democratic grooves,” that they, as Socialists, had “nothing to do with liberty” and, significantly, that democracy was “incompatible with Socialism” (M. Cole, pp. 196-7). 

Embarrassing though this might have been to the general Fabian and Labour membership, it is clear that these were not just Shavian ramblings. Shaw was not shy about expressing his admiration for fascist dictators like Italy’s Benito Mussolini and, in particular, for Communist Russia’s dictators Lenin and Stalin. 

Indeed, Shaw’s confession that democracy was “incompatible with Socialism” was identical to Lenin’s own views on the subject expressed in The State and Revolution(1917), The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky (1918) and other writings.

Of particular importance in this connection are Shaw’s numerous public statements showing that he viewed Marxism-Leninism, and later Stalinism, as model manifestations of Fabian Socialism.

To give just a few examples:

According to Shaw, Lenin studied the works of Sydney Webb and “became a gradualist” after which he transformed Russian Socialism into Fabianism.

Shaw declared that “Bolshevism became Fabianism, called Communism.”

Shaw believed that Russian Communism was Fabian Socialism and that the U.S.S.R. was really a “Union of Fabian Republics.”

Shaw described Lenin as the “greatest statesman of Europe.”

Shaw said that “Stalin is a good Fabian” (Ratiu, pp. 85-6; cf. Butler, p. 11). 

Shaw’s contention that Lenin became a “gradualist” is, of course, open to debate as Lenin was one of the leaders of the 1917 October Revolution nothing about which was gradualist. But Lenin did study the Webbs’ Industrial Democracy which he translated into Russian and he did advocate state capitalism as a step towards Socialism, which may be construed as gradualist.

At any rate, from 1920 to 1930, Shaw conducted an advanced Fabian course on Soviet Communism praising its alleged virtues (Holroyd, vol. 3, p. 230). More important, Shaw clearly equated Soviet Communism with Fabianism, declaring after a visit to the Soviet Union “now that I have seen Russia I am more of a Communist than ever” (Shaw, 1 Aug. 1931).

Nor was admiration for Communist Russia and its leaders restricted to Shaw. The Webbs, too, were great admirers of Lenin and Stalin, even keeping a portrait of Lenin at their home and, in 1931, they followed Shaw on a visit to Stalin. On their return, they wrote a massive, two-volume propaganda document for Stalinist Russia entitled Soviet Communism: A New Civilization (1935). 

The Webbs’ book was promoted across the country and beyond through Fabian outfits like the influential Left Book Club, and by leading Fabians like Beatrice Webb’s nephew Stafford Cripps, a notorious Stalinist. Yet despite, or because of, their allegiance to Stalinist Russia, Webb was appointed Fabian Society president in 1939, followed by her nephew in 1951.

Other leading Fabians who paid visits to Stalinist Russia included Margaret Cole, who later became honorary secretary and chairman of the Fabian Society, and John Parker. The latter conducted Fabian Society tours and “educational visits” to Russia from 1932 into the 60s, during which period he served as Fabian Society general secretary, chairman and later president (1980-87) (M. Cole, pp. 342-3; Who Is Who & Who Was Who). Parker also wrote his own pro-Soviet book, 42 Days in the Soviet Union (1945).

In an interesting twist to the story, it emerges that the Society’s connections with Lenin and his clique stretched back long before the Revolution. Fabian Society member Joseph Fels, a wealthy soap manufacturer and close friend of Webb and Shaw, had provided a loan of ₤1,700, in addition to pocket money in the sum of one gold sovereign per delegate, to Lenin, Trotsky and their Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (later Communist Party) during their 1907 London conference (Rappaport, pp. 153-4).

On balance, the Fabian leadership’s backing of dictatorship both in theory and practice becomes indisputable.

The Fabian Society and World Government

Outside Britain, the Fabian Society’s ultimate goal has been the establishment of a Socialist World Government. The Society’s concern with international organisation was articulated early on in Fabian documents like International Government (1916) which formed the basis for the creation, three years later, of the League of Nations in collaboration with the Milner Group.

Leading Fabians involved in setting up and running the League included Leonard Woolf, Konni Zilliacus, Philip Noel-Baker, Arthur Salter and the American Walter Lippmann who was one of the Fabian contacts to US President Woodrow Wilson.

From the 1920s, world government was particularly promoted through the London School of Economics’ International Relations Department (funded by the CasselTrust) where Noel-Baker ran courses such as the International Politics course on “international organisation for the promotion of common political and economic interest,” which also promoted Fabian books on the subject like International Government.

In 1941, the Fabian Society set up the Fabian International Bureau which was chaired by Noel-Baker, was involved in research and propaganda in international matters, and promoted various internationalist schemes like the union of the British Empire with America and Russia.

Unsurprisingly, the next Fabian project was the United Nations (UN) which was created in 1944 with the involvement of the Fabian Socialist Rockefellers and their Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Designed as a successor to the League, the UN had as permanent members Fabian Socialist Britain, Democratic America, Communist Russia and National Socialist China and, from inception, was dominated by Socialists like Paul-Henri Spaak, Trygve Lie, Dag Hammarskjold and many others (Griffin, 1964), all of whom were closely connected with the London Fabians who had acquired a dominant position in the Socialist world during the war, when Europe’s Socialist leaders had fled to London.

Needless to say, the Fabian Society was a staunch supporter of the UN. In the 1950s it went as far as amending its “Basis,” committing itself to the implementation of the Charter of the United Nations and to the creation of “effective international institutions” (Cole, p. 339).

While agitating for world government through apparently “mainstream” international organisations like the UN and educational institutions like the LSE, the Fabian Society also established an international network of Socialist parties and other organisations operating under the umbrella of the Socialist International, which the Society set up in 1951 for the purpose of co-ordinating international Socialism.

Before long, the Socialist International was able to openly 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” (“The World Today: The Socialist Perspective,” Declaration of the Socialist International Oslo Conference, 2-4 June 1962).

This stance was parroted by Socialist parties (all members of the Fabian SI) 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).

World government has remained the central objective of the Fabian Society ever since and has been vigorously promoted by leading Fabians like Peter Mandelson, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

The Fabian Society and the United States of Europe

Like other Socialist projects, the idea of a United States of Europe originated in liberal capitalist circles, notably those around Richard Cobden, and was adopted by leading Socialists like Engels and Wilhelm Liebknecht, founder of the Social Democratic Workers’ Party of Germany (SDAP) (Liebknecht, 1889).

By 1914, when the Fabian Society was exploring international government, the idea had become part of the official policy of the Fabian-created and -controlled Independent Labour Party (ILP) (“Review of the Week,” Labour Leader, 1 Oct. 1914). During and after World War I, the project was actively promoted by leading Fabians like Arthur Ponsonby, Joseph Retinger, Arthur Salter (a former member of the Fabian Society) and collaborators like Aristide Briand. 

Tellingly, the project enjoyed the support of leading financiers like Louis von Rothschild of S. M. von Rothschild & Söhne, Vienna. Moreover, the political drive for a united Europe worked hand in hand with the drive by international financiers to establish a new world financial order involving a network of central banks controlled by themselves.

Thus, in January 1920, Liberal Herbert Asquith and Labourite J R Clynes along with Rothschild agents Paul Warburg, Jacob Schiff and J P Morgan Jr.,  as well as Bank of England, Lazard and Rockefeller representatives, jointly called for an international economic conference to reorganise the world’s financial and commercial structure (“Powers To Confer On World Finance,” NYT, 15 Jan. 1920); in November 1921, plans for a “Gold Reserve Bank of the United States of Europe” were presented by Frank Vanderlip of the Rockefeller-controlled and Morgan-associated National City Bank of New York (“Vanderlip Gives Details Of Plan For World Bank,” NYT, 13 Nov 1921), etc.

The Fabian Society, Bilderberg and other instruments of undemocratic power

In his Memoirs, David Rockefeller has written that “Bilderberg meetings must induce apocalyptic visions of omnipotent international bankers plotting with unscrupulous government officials to impose cunning schemes on an ignorant and unsuspecting world” (Rockefeller, pp. 410-1).

Bankers like the Rockefellers and their associates may not be omnipotent, but they certainly are very powerful and influential. As to plotting with unscrupulous government officials to impose their cunning schemes on the world, that’s exactly what they are doing. The Bilderberg Group itself is a good example.

According to those involved in its creation, including David Rockefeller himself, the Bilderberg Group was the brainchild of Joseph Retinger, a London-based Polish Socialist and close collaborator of the Fabian Society.

Retinger had been in charge of co-ordinating the foreign ministers of various European governments-in-exile stationed in London during World War II. After the war, he was a leading figure in various semi-secret organisations working for a united Europe, such as the Independent League for European Co-operation (ILEC) and the European League for Economic Co-operation (ELEC).

The unification of Europe was also a key objective of US foreign policy as evident from numerous statements by US leaders like President J F Kennedy in his “Declaration of Interdependence” speech of 1962 (Monnet, p. 467).

It is also evident from statements by British leaders like Labour Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, a Fabian Society member, who pointed out in the House of Commons that America’s Economic Co-operation Administration (ECA) was very keen on the economic and political unification of Europe.

The ECA was the agency in charge of administering financial aid to Europe as part of the European Recovery Plan a.k.a. “Marshall Plan.” The Plan itself had been instigated by Deputy-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs William Clayton and the ECA was headed by Economic Co-operation Administrator Paul G Hoffman.

Both Clayton and Hoffman were members of the Rockefeller-dominated Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and founders of the US Committee for Economic Development (CED) in 1942 (Smoot, p. 52). It follows that the Marshall Plan and the unification of Europe which was stipulated as a precondition for Marshall Aid, were instigated and engineered by the international bankers who, according to David Rockefeller, do not plot cunning schemes with unscrupulous politicians.

Retinger aside, it was these very same international bankers and politicians who in 1954 set up the Bilderberg Group to co-ordinate American and European business and political interests with a view to creating a united Europe – primarily as a market for US business, but also as a step towards world government.

Among those involved on the US side were: David and Nelson Rockefeller; Joseph E. Johnson, chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and president of the Rockefeller-controlled Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Dean Rusk, CFR director, director of the Rockefeller Foundation, Bilderberg co-chairman and (from 1961) Democrat Secretary of State; and CFR members John Foster Dulles and Allen W Dulles. David Rockefeller himself was a leading figure in the Senior Advisory Group at Bilderberg meetings.

The British side was led by Denis Healey and Hugh Gaitskell of the Fabian Society executive committee. Healey, who had also been involved in setting up the Socialist International, was also member and later chairman of the Fabian International Bureau Advisory Committee as well as Chatham House (RIIA) councillor. His token “Conservative” colleague on the Bilderberg steering committee was Reginald (“Reggie”) Maudling, Churchill’s Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who had been a key supporter of Labour’s nationalisation programme.

In addition to leading Fabians like Healey and Gaitskell, the Fabian Society was also influential through Continental members like the Frenchman Guy Mollet, Vice-President of the Fabian-controlled Socialist International, leader of the French Section of the Workers’ International (later Socialist) Party (SFIO) who later became Prime Minister of France, and his assistant Jacques Piette of the SFIO executive committee.

Other business interests represented on the Bilderberg steering committee from the 1960s were the French, Swiss and British Rothschild families. In fact, Rothschild associates were present from the start in the person of Bilderberg chairman, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, who was a major shareholder in the oil giant Royal Dutch/Shell which was co-owned by the Rothschilds (Callaghan, pp. 205-6; de Villemarest, vol. 2., pp. 14-5 ff.; Healey, pp. 195-6; Rockefeller, pp. 410-12).  

Although David Rockefeller claims that the Bilderberg Group discusses important issues “without reaching consensus,” the fact remains that Bilderberg meetings played a pivotal role in the development of internationalist projects like the 1957 Treaty of Rome which created the European Economic Community (EEC) a.k.a. “Common Market” (Aldrich, p. 216).

Of course, important though it may be, Bilderberg is not at the very top of the international power structure working for world domination behind the scenes. That place is reserved for other semi-secret organisations like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller.  

Among the Trilateral’s members, we find the same constellation of interests as in the Bilderberg Group. Early members included: Denis Healey of the Fabian Society and Chatham House (Royal Institute of International Affairs); Sir Reay Geddes, director of Shell Transport and Trading (ST&T), the UK branch of Royal Dutch/Shell; Baron Edmond de Rothschild, director of Edmond de Rothschild Banque, Paris; Baron Leon Lambert, cousin of the French Rothschilds, head of Groupe (later Banque) Bruxelles Lambert, and personal friend of David Rockefeller; and, of course, David Rockefeller and associates (Sklar, 1980).

Fabians Society members like R. H. Tawney, John Maynard Keynes, Philip Noel-Baker and Walter Lippmann were also involved in the creation of Chatham House a.k.a. Royal Institute of Foreign Affairs (RIIA) – of which the LSE is an institutional member – and its sister organisation, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). As in the case of Bilderberg, these Fabians were acting as agents and collaborators of financial interests represented by the Astor, Morgan, Rockefeller and Schiff groups (Ratiu, 132-8, 163-4).

The Fabian Society and Keynesian “economics”

The Fabian Society had developed an obsession with economics in the very first months and years of its existence, when its members met regularly to study and discuss Karl Marx and his economic theories. This obsession led to the Fabians’ creation of institutions like the British Economic Association (later Royal Economic Society) and, in particular, the London School of Economics (LSE).

The Fabians’ strange interest was motivated by two things. First, they could use economic theories as a “scientific” backing for their Socialist ideology just as Marx had done before them. Second, through educational institutions teaching Fabian economics, they consciously sought to create whole generations of professional economists – a new ruling class – who, working as civil servants and other government officials, would implement Fabian policies (M. Cole, p. 88).

The first step in this direction was to get economics recognised as a “science.” Needless to say, unlike true science, such as Physics, which is based on universally accepted facts from the natural world, economics had more to do with what economists believed about people’s financial behaviour. This resulted in conflicting theories clearly showing that economics was not a science and economics remains a system plagued by theoretical conflict to this day.

Unfortunately, Sidney Webb’s machinations ensured that the Royal Commission dealing with the matter recognised economics as a science (Webb, p. 195), just in time for the Fabians’ LSE to become a faculty of the University of London as part of the latter’s reorganisation in 1900. This paved the way for the infiltration and domination of society – for many generations to come – by a system hell-bent on imposing Socialism on the world.

The central feature of Fabian “economics” – which Fabianism shares with other Socialist systems – revolved around state control of resources and production: already in their Manifesto of 1884, the Fabians had called for land nationalisation and state control of the industry.

This is an important point which shows that the Fabians’ main concern was the acquisition of power, not the welfare of the general public. Indeed, as later conceded by Fabian leaders, the Fabians had no true practical understanding either of existing society or Socialism and, in particular, no knowledge of the “claims and aims of the working people.”

In his history of the Fabian Society, Shaw candidly describes the Fabians’ lack of sympathy with working-class aspirations (Shaw, 1892; Pease, p. 30). In fact, apart from the obvious objective to grab power, the Fabians had no knowledge of what they were doing or how to go about “reconstructing society” (Pease, p. 27).

Policies related to working hours or wages came to be adopted almost as an afterthought and for the obvious purpose of falsely constructing Fabianism as a movement concerned with working-class interests (Pease, p. 88).

All this exposes Fabianism as a project that was as fraudulent as the Marxism from which its masterminds had lifted their economic theories. To sugar-coat their calls for state control of the economy, the Fabians called for growing involvement of the State in the welfare of individual citizens, eventually leading to the cradle-to-grave social security programme devised by William Beveridge in his 1942 Report.

Much of the Beveridge Report had in fact been anticipated by work carried out by the Fabian Research Bureau and published in 1943 as Social Security under the editorship of William Alexander Robson (M. Cole, p. 298), an LSE alumnus of political science who acted as the Fabians’ “expert” and adviser to local government. Moreover, Beveridge’s Report was massively promoted by the Fabian Social Security Committee which also launched the Beveridge Social Security League for the purpose.

Beveridge himself was a long-standing collaborator of the Fabian leadership, had served as director of the Fabians’ London School of Economics from 1919 to 1937 and was a friend of the Rockefeller family whom he tapped for funds for the LSE (Rockefeller, p. 81). 

Although several leading politicians expressed concerns about the financial implications of the policies proposed in the Beveridge Report, it was adopted and implemented by the Attlee Government, laying the foundations for the modern Welfare (or Nanny) State.

The Beveridge Report, of course, went hand in hand with the theories of John Maynard Keynes who, as long-time General-Secretary and later president of the Royal Economic Society, was the official economist of Fabian Socialism.

Though officially a member of the Liberal Party, Keynes was undoubtedly a Fabian (Pugh, p. 158) who had made his way into the Economic Advisory Council to the 1929 Labour Government and soon became an apostle of public deficit spending (which advised governments to spend money they didn’t have on public projects).

Unsurprisingly, Keynes was one of the architects of the 1944 Breton Woods conference that established the World Bank and the IMF, which effectively became instruments for bankrolling World Socialism. He also headed the British delegation to Washington that negotiated the $4.34 billion US loan to Britain in late 1945 and early 1946.

Like the other false prophet of Socialism, Karl Marx, Keynes was an accomplished charlatan as evident from the fact that he used his influence in the Treasury to manipulate prices and amass a fortune for himself by speculating on the stock market. As for his General Theory, it was based on distorted logic and unsubstantiated assumptions (for an eye-opening exposé of Keynes and his theories see Martin, pp. 323-41).      

Unfortunately, the Fabian propaganda machine raised Keynes to the position of economic guru of choice to left-wing governments on both sides of the Atlantic, enabling him to export his fraudulent theories to America where they were eagerly embraced by the advocates of Socialism by the backdoor. 

Back in Britain, the Socialist experiment was failing. By 1950, after five years of Fabian government, it was becoming clear that Socialism was incapable of solving practical problems. The state-owned industry was inefficient and unproductive; management was carried on by a new elite of “experts” unconcerned with workers’ interests; state controls were being resented; party conferences raised more problems related to enterprise, taxation and government reform than they solved; popular support was fast draining away and the Fabian leadership was forced to acknowledge a loss of conviction that Socialism was a source of good or would even serve as a means to an end (Pugh, pp. 227-30).

Although the Fabian Labour Party was soundly beaten at the 1951 election, Keynes’ international system of finance together with the Marshall Plan and generous loans from left-wing American administrations literally saved British Socialism from sure death and artificially kept it alive to fight another day. This is how mounting government spending, ever-rising taxes, national debt and state control for the sake of permanent “economic growth” and “social progress” have become the curse of Socialist-dominated nations around the world.

The Fabian Society, immigration and race

The Fabian Society has not always been pro-immigration. In the first years of its existence, for example, it was advising the government to restrict immigration of unskilled foreign workers (Pugh, p. 18).

Later, however, a steadily rising number of immigrants were coming into the country thanks to the British Nationality Act passed by the Fabian Attlee Government in 1948.

In the late 1960s, Labour governments were forced to introduce legislation restricting immigration. While cabinet members – most of whom were Fabians – supported this legislation, some leading Fabians did oppose immigration control, notably former Fabian Society general secretary Shirley Williams, who served as Minister for Home Affairs (Hansen, p. 810).

Eventually, the Fabian leadership clearly took the side of the growing immigrant population. By the early 1980s, the Fabian Labour Party was campaigning for the removal of restrictions on immigration related to age, sex, citizenship and birthplace, that is, virtually all restrictions that had earlier been introduced by the Tory Party (Labour Party manifesto 1983).

As large numbers of immigrants were from non-white areas like the Caribbean, South Asia and Africa, immigration was inevitably linked to race, providing Fabians with the opportunity of using power relations between whites and non-whites for their own agenda.

By the late 1950s, the interests of minorities began to develop into a major concern of the Fabian Society and the Labour Party, as evidenced by a string of publications such as the Labour Party’s “Racial discrimination” (1958), the Young Fabian Society’s “Strangers within” (1965) and the Fabian Society’s “Immigration and race relations” (1970).

Before long, “race discrimination” was replaced by “positive discrimination” in favour of immigrant minorities. For example, in the 1960s and 70s, Fabian-controlled local authorities introduced schemes facilitating the housing of non-white immigrants through loans and the preferential employment of non-whites (Patterson, pp. 212-3; Joppke, p. 231).

Chief among these authorities was the Greater London Council (GLC), the local governing body for Greater London, which had evolved from the earlier London County Council (LCC), a body dominated by Fabians from the 1890s, when Sidney Webb and other Fabians were members of its various committees. Like its predecessor, the GLC (established in 1965) was controlled by Fabians like Tom Ponsonby, who served as alderman and later chairman in the 70s, while also serving as general secretary of the Fabian Society (1964-76) and governor of the LSE.     

Fabians were instrumental in setting up a pervading system of race relations legislation complete with the authorities to implement it (Pugh, p. 257). The 1965 Race Relations Act was introduced by Home Secretary Frank Soskice, a Fabian. The Act created the Race Relations Board (RRB) which was set up in the following year by the incoming Home Secretary and former Fabian Society chairman, Roy Jenkins.

In 1967, Home Secretary Roy Jenkins drafted a Race Relations Bill leading to the second Race Relations Act – introduced by his fellow Fabian and successor James Callaghan in the following year – which established the Community Relations Commission (CRC). In 1976, Roy Jenkins, again as Labour Home Secretary, introduced the third Race Relations Act which merged the RRB and the CRC to form the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) with new enforcement powers.

The Commission for Racial Equality along with the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) – also created by Roy Jenkins in 1975 – and a wide range of immigrant-oriented inner-city and other programmes became the key instrument through which the Fabians were able to further enforce their immigrationist policies.

Another leading race relations activist was special adviser to Roy Jenkins, Anthony Lester, honorary treasurer and later chairman (1972-73) of the Fabian Society. Lester was a close collaborator of the above-mentioned race relations organisations, founded the pro-immigrant Runnymede Trust and authored various publications promoting a Fabian agenda like Policies for Racial Equality (1969).

Fabian programmatic papers like A Policy for Equality: Race (ILEA, 1983), show that by the 1980s, under the pretext of “race equality,” Fabian policy aimed to change what it had identified as the “power relations between white and black people” in favour of the non-white immigrant population.

Finally, 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 for the purpose of changing British society (Green, 2010). 

The Fabian stance on immigration is clear from the statements of leading Fabians like Fabian Society general secretary Andrew Harrop to the effect that concerns about immigration should be caused to subside or broaden and that talking about immigration “helps to moderate opinion” (Harrop, “Home affairs: too hot to handle?”, pp. 97-100), as well as from Fabian publications like The Great Rebalancing: How to fix the broken economy (2013) promoting the view that “immigration is central to our growth strategy.”

Economic “growth” – whether factual or imagined – is not the only motivating factor behind these immigrationist policies. The Labour document initiating the mass immigration programme in the early 2000s, makes it very clear that the policy was intended to “maximise the Government’s economic and social objectives”(Whitehead, 2010). What these “social objectives” are we shall see next.

The Fabian society and multiculturalism

The Fabian leadership already advocated the destruction of British culture in the early years of Fabianism. Lectures with titles like “Civilisation: Its Cause and Cure” (1889) were the order of the day while Bernard Shaw regarded it as “good statesmanship” to blow every cathedral in the world to pieces with dynamite without concern about opposition from art critics (Britain, p. 108).

In the 1950s, leading Fabian Society members like Hugh Gaitskell, C. A. R. Crosland and Roy Jenkins, who were on the payroll of international money interests, began to “modernise” British society after the American model, launching a campaign of systematic promotion of American culture which was done in collaboration with the CIA-funded Congress of Cultural Freedom (CCF) and the closely-related Rockefeller and Ford foundations (Callaghan, p. 201-2).

The American culture promoted by the above interests included strong Afro-American elements such as jazz. These elements were reinforced by African-Caribbean traditions like reggae in the 1960s and 70s (promoted by the same interests) and thanks to the subsequent influx of related Afro-American genres (rap, hip-hop, etc.) became dominant, paving the way for large-scale penetration and gradual replacement of European culture by non-European traditions.

Meanwhile, rising numbers of immigrants, particularly South Asians (Indians and Pakistanis) began to resist assimilation into British society (Patterson, p. 111). Instead of encouraging the immigrant population to assimilate, the left-wing political leadership under Fabian Prime Minister Harold Wilson reacted by imposing multiculturalism disguised as “integration” on the indigenous society (Joppke, p. 233).

In a speech to a meeting of Voluntary Liaison Committees on 23 May 1966, Labour Home Secretary and former Fabian Society chairman, Roy Jenkins, defined integration as “equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity,” adding that this was now a “Home Office responsibility” (Patterson, p. 113). Thus, state-imposed cultural diversity, later dubbed “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 express aim of making British society “more multicultural” (Whitehead, 2009).

Labour’s multiculturalist programme was fully in line with the agenda of Fabian operations like the Runnymede Trust, whose Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain (set up in 1998 to promote “racial justice”) demanded a formal declaration that Britain is a multicultural society and called on political leaders to lead the country in “re-imagining Britain” (CFMEB, 2000, p. 229).

The CFMEB report – edited in early 2000 for publication in October – also coincided with the secret Labour document “Preliminary Report on Migration” produced by the Home Office and Tony Blair’s Cabinet Office think-tank Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU), which referred to the “social objectives” of the government’s immigration policy (PIU/HO, 2000; Green, 2010; Whitehead, 2010).

As we have just seen, these “social objectives” revolved around changing British culture. As pointed out by leading commentators, there was a deliberate agenda to transform the cultural identity of the British people. Melanie Phillips correctly described this agenda as “national cultural sabotage” (Phillips, 2009).

However, the most important and dramatic changes mass immigration brings about in a society are not cultural but demographic, that is ethnic and racial. You cannot import millions of ethnically and racially distinct people into a given territory without changing the ethnic and racial make-up of the host population. It follows that the real and most disturbing agenda of Fabian-Labour policy aimed to change the ethnic and racial make-up of British society.  

This is a very important point given that, while the destruction of an entire nation’s cultural identity is morally reprehensible, the forcible transformation of a population’s ethnic and racial composition is an enterprise of a different order, coming very close to the accepted definition of genocide – a very serious crime not only in moral but also in legal terms.

These alarming developments have been pointed out by a number of commentators, from Leo McKinstry who notes that there is a “campaign of aggressive discrimination against England’s indigenous population” ranging from discrimination against individuals to discrimination against whole towns and amounting to “war on the English people” (McKinstry, 2007), to Tony Shell who describes what is happening as “genocidal population change” and “progressive genocide” (Shell, 2011, p. 1; Shell, 2012, p. 2).

As conceded by Fabian Society general secretary Sunder Katwala, multiculturalism in Britain never succeeded in engaging the majority white population (Katwala, 2005). Reports by his think-tank British Future have found that indigenous Britons are far less optimistic about their future than the immigrant (black and Asian) population (Jolley and Katwala, 2012). Typically, Katwala seems to be unable (or unwilling) to understand that no project aiming to replace one population with another can possibly enjoy the support of the population being replaced.

There can be little doubt that, were these policies applied to non-European populations, their architects would be indicted by Fabians as “colonialists,” “imperialists” and “racists.” The Conservatives were absolutely right to demand an independent inquiry into the issue. However, even without an inquiry, Fabianism stands exposed as the double-faced, anti-British project it has always been.

Multiculturalism through state-imposed mass immigration is not, and will never be, a project representing the interests and wishes of Britain’s indigenous population.  Whose interests multiculturalism serves is clear from its architects and their connections from inception to the present.

The involvement of political interests like leading members of the Fabian Society and the Labour Party is indisputable. But equally important is the involvement of financial interests. Fabian Society member and former chairman Roy Jenkins joined David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission in the 1970s. The Wilson government itself was funded by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which was run by members of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (Martin, p. 109).

Thus, a clear connection can be established not only between multiculturalism and Fabianism but also between multiculturalism and the international money power. On their part, Fabianism and the money power themselves are united in their shared goal of establishing world government by destroying the nation-state.

This shared goal naturally leads to close co-operation between Fabians and like-minded politicians as well as financial and industrial interests. These interests have a long history of using “philanthropic” foundations to promote their subversive agendas under the cloak of “social and racial justice” or “the public good.”

Charity Commission records show that in 2007 the Fabian Society and the Barrow Cadbury Trust (a pro-immigrant charitable foundation controlled by chocolate manufacturer Cadbury that operates in partnership with the Fabian Society) took part in secret discussions on “progressive migration policy” with various Labour politicians including Immigration Minister Liam Byrne (Shell, 2011, p. 2), a Fabian Society member and co-founder of Progress (see below).

Other major “charities” operating in partnership with the Fabian Society, funding its projects, or otherwise promoting its agenda, are the Webb Memorial Trust and the Joseph Rowntree foundations.

·     The Webb Memorial Trust has been providing grants to the Fabian Society.

·     The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) has been working in partnership with the Fabian Society.

·     The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust (JRRT) along with Barrow Cadbury Trust (BCT) have provided grants to COMPASS, a Brownite pressure group set up in 2003 and headed by the Fabian Neal Lawson.

·     The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust (JRCT) – which describes itself as a “progressive foundation committed to radical change” – has been co-funding the Runnymede Trust’s Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain (CFMEB), etc.

These Fabian and Fabian-associated foundations are also heavily represented in a number of other foundations and associations of foundations, all working for the same Fabian agenda. For example, Barrow Cadbury Trust (BCT) CEO Sara Llewellin also serves as vice-chairman of the Association of Charitable Foundations (ACF), whose nominations committees include Anna Southhall of BCT and Simon Buxton of the Fabian-controlled Noel Buxton Trust (NBT), a foundation named after the Fabian Lord Noel-Buxton. Llewellin is also a member of the Governing Council of the European Foundations Centre.

Similar links may be established between the Fabian Blair-Brown administration and left-wing academic and financial interests.

Jonathan Portes, the head of the PIU Migration Project which produced the “Preliminary Report on Migration” advocating mass immigration for social-engineering purposes, is the son of Professor Richard Portes, a CFR director and leading member of the Fabian-controlled Royal Economics Society (vice-chairman from 2009).  

Prior to joining the Blair Administration, Jonathan worked for the US Treasury Department under Treasury Secretary and CFR director Robert Rubin (1996-9) and as special consultant to the IMF under first deputy managing director and LSE economics graduate Stanley Fisher (1998-9).

In February 2011 Portes took on a post as director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), a Keynesian outfit set up with Rockefeller funds by LSE graduate and banker Josiah Stamp. With Nicholas Monk, son of Fabian Society general secretary Bosworth Monk, as president and LSE Professor of Economics and Political Science, Tomothy Besley, as chairman, the NIESR is clearly another Fabian operation with Rockefeller connections.

Likewise, we find that Tony Blair’s assistant political secretary (1997-2000), FarzanaHakim, joined J P Morgan in 2000 when it was bought up by the Rockefellers’ Chase Manhattan Bank. Tony Blair himself, on leaving office, took on a post as adviser to J P Morgan (part of the Rockefellers’ new bank, JPMorgan Chase) and currently chairs its International Advisory Council whose members include: long-time Rockefeller associates Henry Kissinger and Kofi Annan; Khalid Al-Falih, President and CEO of Saudi Aramco (a former Rockefeller-Saudi operation); and Ratan Naval Tata, chairman of Tata Sons Ltd.

As shown above, both the Rockefellers and the Tata Group have close links to the Fabian Society going back to the early 1900s and both groups have made substantial monetary contributions to the Fabian Society’s London School of Economics.

The Fabian Society and Islamisation

The Fabians have always had a soft spot for the exotic and, in particular, for subversive religious and pseudo-religious movements that lent themselves to being used for Fabian purposes. Among these were Freemasonry (leading Fabians like Annie Besant, A. R. Orage and Clement Attlee, were members of Masonic lodges); Theosophy (of which Besant was also a leading light); and Gurdjeff’s “Fourth Way.” 

Fabian interest in, and support of, Islam was motivated by the following factors:

·     Empire politics. From the beginning, British support of Islam was closely connected with imperial interests in South Asia, North Africa and the Middle East.

·     The “revolutionary” character of Islam. The socialistic, Cobdenite teachings of Islam such as “universal brotherhood” along with its opposition to Christianity, made it a convenient ally in the Fabians’ relentless drive to undermine Western society and civilisation. 

In his writings, H. G. Wells praised Islam’s alleged insistence on “the perfect brotherhood and equality before God,” while Shaw wrote that Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was “a great Protestant religious force,” like George Fox or Wesley. Other leading Fabian apologists for Islam were Annie Besant and Bertrand Russell (Ratiu, p. 102).

·     The Fabianisation of the Muslim world. Fabianism’s own inroads into the Muslim world, in particular, North Africa and the Middle East, made friendly relations with Islam imperative.

·     Oil interests. The Fabians’ aim of controlling the world’s natural resources – which coincided with the aim of the big oil companies – called for friendly relations with Islam.

·     The rise of Islam as a world power. The Muslim world’s growing economic and political power resulting from oil revenues, again, made friendly relations with Islam imperative.

·     Muslim mass immigration. Mass immigration of Muslims from South Asia and Africa facilitated by Fabian Labour policy created new demographic and electoral realities which Fabian Labour governments – both local and national – fully exploited to their advantage.      

As oil was fast becoming a treasured commodity thanks to the efforts of industrial and banking interests like the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers – who controlled the Royal Dutch Shell and Standard Oil (later Exxon) empires – the Fabians and their collaborators among the ruling elites of the British Empire could hardly have avoided taking a pro-Muslim stance. 

And so, we find that in 1914 the government of Liberal Prime Minister Herbert Asquith declared:

“One of [the government’s] fundamental traditions is to be a friend of Islam and Muslums and to defend the Islamic Khalifate even if it was a Khalifate of conquest as the Turkish Khalifate …” (FO141/710/9).

Both Asquith and his Foreign Secretary Edward Grey were close to the Fabian Society. Asquith was a close friend of Bernard Shaw and helped the Fabian Ramsay MacDonald become Prime Minister in 1924 and 1929. Grey was a member of the Fabian Society’s Coefficients Club where collaboration between the Fabian Society, the Milner Group and various political parties and business interests was discussed and plotted.

This official pro-Muslim position was confirmed by leading Fabian and Secretary of State for India (Lord) Sydney Olivier, who wrote: 

“No one with a close acquaintance with Indian affairs will be prepared to deny that on the whole there is a predominant bias in British officialism in favour of the Moslem community, partly on the ground of closer sympathy but more largely as a make-weight against Hindu nationalism” (Olivier, 1926).

Key persons who were either Fabians or associates of the Fabians to promote Muslim causes included:

·     Herbert (later Lord) Samuel, an intimate friend of the Webbs. In 1921, while serving as High Commissioner for Palestine, he appointed Mohammad Amin al-Husseini Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Al-Husseini later played an important role in the Muslim Brotherhood, the Caliphate Movement and the Arab League.

·     Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Fabian Society member. In collaboration with Fabian International Bureau chairman and Commonwealth Secretary Philip Noel-Baker and Fabian Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, Jinnah promoted the creation of Pakistan as an independent Muslim state as well as the annexation of Kashmir to Pakistan following Partition.

·     Mahatma Gandhi, Fabian Society member. In 1920, Gandhi supported India’s Caliphate (Khilafat) Movement which aimed to restore the Muslim Empire and became a member of the Central Khilafat Committee.

·     Lord Rothschild, president of the LSE. Involved in setting up the London Mosque Fund in 1910, remaining a trustee until his death in 1915. The project enjoyed the support of the former principal of the Muhammadan College of Aligarh and LSE lecturer Sir Theodore Morison, and over time developed into the East London Mosque and Islamic Culture Centre (est. 1941), the UK Islamic Mission (est. 1962) and the London Muslim Centre (LCM), established in 2004. According to its website, the ELM-LCM site in Whitechapel (Tower Hamlets, East London) is set to become the largest Islamic complex in Western Europe.

Fabian penetration and the Islamic backlash

From the early 1890s onwards, the Fabians were busy travelling around the world, setting up Fabian groups or quietly spreading their teachings in nearly every country on earth (M. Cole, pp. 347-8). The Islamic Middle East and North Africa were no exception. In 1922, Turkey became a secular, Westernised republic.

By the 1950s, 60s and 70s, Socialism with an Arab twist was spreading to the rest of the Islamic world: Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Algeria, Libya and even Saudi Arabia where Prince Talal Ibn Saud, the ruling king’s brother, declared himself to be “a Fabian Socialist” (Fabian News, Nov. 1962).

As shown above, however, there was a parallel counter-movement unfolding at the same time, often with Western (including Fabian) assistance. The Fabians’ systematic promotion of anti-colonialism certainly accounts for much of the anti-Western sentiment that was to develop particularly in the Muslim world.

Thus, while various Arab organisations began to spring up – the Arab League (1945), the Council of Arab Economic Unity (1957), the Arab Common Market (1964) – apparently emulating similar Western organisations, other bodies with a distinctly Islamic agenda came on the scene.

One of these was the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, an organisation set up in 1972 to preserve Islamic social and economic values and to promote solidarity among its members, and whose institutions were to be an Islamic Development Bank, an Islamic Educational, scientific and Cultural Organisation and an International Islamic News Agency.

Apart from Fabian-inspired anti-colonialism, the reason for this new Muslim assertiveness was the West’s growing dependence on Arab oil. At the 1955 annual conference, the Fabian-controlled Labour executive noted that the Middle East was the main issue in the world because that was where most of the world’s oil reserves lay (Callaghan, p. 231).

Britain’s oil supplies were, for the time being, reasonably safe. In 1953, Prime Minister Winston Churchill and US President Eisenhower had ordered a coup d’état in Iran – carried out through MI6 and the CIA – to install a puppet regime and put that country’s oil resources under the control of the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later BP) (M. Curtis, 2003, pp. 303-4). The remainder of Britain’s oil imports (about half) was supplied by Kuwait. 

A turning point in Western-Muslim relations came in 1973, when oil-producing Arab countries (OPEC) imposed an oil embargo on America and several Western European countries who had supported Israel in the Arab-Israeli Yom Kippur War. At the same time, there was a five-fold increase in oil prices, creating huge deficits in oil-consuming economies. 

While leading industrial countries like America, West Germany and Japan sensibly reduced their deficits by deflating their economies, the Labour government under Fabian Chancellor Healey decided to finance Britain’s own deficit by borrowing from merchant banks as well as from Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Healey also proposed an international mechanism through which the IMF would borrow surplus petrodollars from the OPEC to loan to oil-consuming countries struggling to finance their deficits. When this was rejected by America, he organised a smaller-scale facility for Western European countries (Healey, pp. 423-6), named “Second Witteveen Oil Facility” after IMF managing director Johannes Witteveen, the former Finance Minister of the Netherlands who aimed to transform the IMF into a centralised global bank. Thus, with one stroke, Europe was demoted from colonial power to a dependency of the Arab world.

The Euro-Arab Dialogue and the Fabian New World Order

While the above manoeuvres rendered Britain and other European countries indebted to the Muslim-dominated OPEC and the IMF, another diabolical plan was hatched to tie Europe even closer to the Islamic world.

In 1973, French Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs Jean-Noel de Lipkowskiinitiated discussions for a Euro-Arab dialogue with the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi (Ye’or, p. 52). In November, French President Georges Pompidou himself and West-German Chancellor Willy Brandt met to reaffirm the intention to engage in a “dialogue with the Arabs.” At the instigation of Pompidou, a European Summit was convened on 14-15 December at Copenhagen to launch the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD).

A closer look at the protagonists of the Euro-Arab Project reveals the interests behind it. It is a well-known fact that the whole Pompidou Administration, from Under-Secretary Lipkowski to Foreign Minister Jobert to Pompidou, was pro-Arab and the President himself was known for his “Mediterranean vision.” But the Pompidou Administration was also close to Rothschild interests. Pompidou himself had served as general director of the Rothschild Freres, Paris, and as manager of the French Rothschilds’ business empire until 1962, when he became Prime Minister under de Gaulle.

The “development of Africa” had always been a Rothschild plank, being inserted into the 1950 Schuman Declaration – which established the European Coal and Steel Community (later EEC) – at the insistence of Rothschild cousin and former manager of the Rothschild business empire, Rene Mayer (Monet, p. 300). Of particular interest to the Rothschilds (and to the Rothschild-associated Pompidou Administration) was North Africa, especially oil-producing Arab countries like Algeria and Libya with whom both the Rothschilds and the French government were linked through oil interests: the French government’s CFP and the Rothschilds’ FRANCAREP were operating in the region alongside Shell (another Rothschild-controlled operation), the Rockefellers’ Exxon and other leading European and American companies.

The Fabians’ nationalisation programme imposed on Britain under the Attlee regime after the war had inspired oil-producing countries like Iran, where the Socialist Mohammad Mossadegh nationalised the oil industry in the early 1950s, followed by other Muslim countries in the 60s and 70s. Algeria and Libya began nationalising French and other Western oil interests in 1971. Libya, in particular, was a leader of the Arab conspiracy against the West and, like its next-door neighbour Algeria, was run by a Socialist regime – headed by Colonel Gaddafi, whose close links to the LSE and other Fabian organisations are described in Socialism Exposed.

Another Socialist involved in the Euro-Arab conspiracy was German Chancellor Willy Brand, who had started his political career as co-founder and leader of the International Bureau of Revolutionary Youth Organisations, the youth wing of the International Revolutionary Marxist Centre, a.k.a. London Bureau. The Bureau was controlled by Fenner Brockway of the Independent Labour Party, who was also leader of the League Against Imperialism and a prominent Fabian Society member (Martin, p. 474).

In 1970, Brandt introduced the “Ostpolitik” (East Politics) approach of collaboration with the Moscow-led Eastern Bloc at the instigation of US National Security Adviser and Rockefeller lieutenant Henry Kissinger, which made him the hero of the Labour Party. Brandt was also a long-time friend and colleague of Healey and, as leader of Germany’s Social Democratic Party, a leading figure in the Socialist International which Healey had set up in the 1950s and of which Brandt was appointed president in 1976.

In the following year, US presidential adviser, World Bank President, CFR director and Rockefeller associate Robert McNamara appointed Brandt Chair of the UN Independent Commission on International Development Issues (Brandt Commission). The Commission produced the pro-Third World Brand Report which advocated a “North-South Dialogue” involving the transfer of resources from the North (the developed countries of the Northern hemisphere or First World) to the South (the undeveloped Southern hemisphere or Third World) (Quilligan, 2002). Brandt’s proposals, particularly the creation of a global body to manage economic interdependence (Quilligan, p. 34) were clearly along the lines of Healey’s IMF oil facility and similar Fabian projects.

Kissinger and McNamara had also been Healey’s friends since the 1950s and 60s, respectively (Healey, pp. 316, 307) and so had “Conservative” Prime Minister Edward Heath, a friend of Healey from Balliol, who was instrumental in engineering Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community or Common Market – with the assistance of Pompidou and Willy Brandt. Interestingly, IMF managing director Witteveen, who also became a friend of Healey, was a follower of what Healey calls “the Persian religion of Sufism.” In fact, Sufism is a form of Islam.

Another key element in the equation was British Rothschild interests. Like their French counterparts, British governments had traditionally close links to the Rothschilds. When the chairman of the Fabian International Bureau, Philip Noel-Baker, became Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in 1945, he surrounded himself with members of Lord Victor Rothschild’s circle (Healey, p. 107).

On his part, Rothschild surrounded himself with Fabians and Communists like John Strachey, Anthony Blunt (the Soviet spy), Guy Burgess (another Soviet spy) and Beatrice Webb’s grand niece, Teresa (“Red Tess”) Mayor, all of whom shared Rothschild’s house in Bentinck Street. Rothschild became a Labour peer later that year, and in the following year married Mayor who had been his “personal assistant” in MI5 during the war and was now Noel-Baker’s private secretary (Rose, p. 113).

Noel-Baker himself became chairman of the Labour Party in 1946 and later Commonwealth Secretary and Minister for Fuel and Power. Rothschild became head of research at Royal Dutch Shell from 1961 to 1970 and then served as founding director of the Central Policy Review Staff (CPRS), the cabinet think-tank advising the government, from 1971 to 1974, before becoming chairman of N. M. Rothschild and Rothschild Continuation (the Zurich-based holding company of the Rothschild banking group). 

Needless to say, the Rothschilds (on both sides of the Channel) were in favour of Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community and were involved in various EEC projects like the European Composite Unit (EURCO), a forerunner of the euro (Ferguson, 2000, vol. 2, p. 486). Moreover, both the Fabians and their financier associates had been at the forefront of the drive for a united Europe from the early 1900s (see above). 

What becomes apparent is that there was a striking coincidence of a number of events representing key elements in the New Economic World Order that the Fabians and their financial and industrial collaborators and backers had been planning and promoting for decades, among which were the following:

·     Nationalisation of oil in Socialist Arab countries, notably North African ones like Libya (who supplied 25 per cent of Western Europe’s oil), 1971-3.

·     Enlargement of the European Economic Community, 1973.

·     Britain’s entry into the EEC, 1973.

·     Launch of the Rothschilds’ European Composite Unit, 1973.

·     Founding of the Rockefellers’ Trilateral Commission, 1973, of which leading Fabian Roy Jenkins was a founding member, later joined by Healey and his friend Heath.

·     Pompidou and Brandt’s Euro-Arab Dialogue, 1973.

·     The United Nations’ New International Economic Order (NIEC), 1974.

·     Healey’s OPEC-IMF loan facility, 1974-75.

·     The United Nations’ Brandt Commission advocating a North-South Dialogue and redistribution of resources from the First World to the Third World, 1977-80.

It follows that the Euro-Arab Dialogue was in fact a regional scheme within the global New International Economic Order (Corbineau, p. 561), which was being forged by a small clique of left-wing, internationalist politicians – many of them Fabian or Fabian-influenced – with close links to powerful financial interests like the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers.

The Barcelona Process and the Union for the Mediterranean: from “Dialogue” to “Union”

The construction of Europe-Arabia (Eurabia) came to a temporary halt in 1979 at the request of the EEC’s partner, the Arab League, following the Camp David Agreements between Egypt and Israel, which resulted in the expulsion of Egypt from the League, splitting the Arab camp. Further attempts to re-launch the dialogue after Egypt’s readmission in 1989 ended in 1990.

However, the EAD had become the foundation stone for the Islamisation of Europe and once the process had been set in motion, it was carried on by new initiatives, officially by Spain and France, but covertly by the same elements with links to the Fabian Society and associated political and financial interests.

A key figure in Europe’s Islamisation process has been Javier Solana, a nephew of Spanish historian Salvador de Madariaga who was an official of the Milner-Fabian League of Nations and speaker under Fabian auspices (Martin, p. 459). Solana graduated from the Socialist hotbed Complutense University of Madrid and from 1965 to 1971 studied at various Fabian-dominated universities in the USA on a Fulbright scholarship.

The Fulbright programme was a left-wing project operated by the US State Department’s Rockefeller-dominated Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA), a cultural internationalist outfit whose first head was Assistant State Secretary for Education and Culture, Philip H Coombs (the director for education at the Rockefeller-controlled Ford Foundation) who founded the International Institute for Educational Planning and served as adviser to the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), the cultural agency of the UN working for “international collaboration” through education, science and culture, whose first director-general was the British Fabian Julian Huxley.

On his return to Spain, Solana joined Felipe Gonzales’ Socialist government as Culture and later Education Minister in the 1980s, followed by a post as Foreign Minister from 1992. In that capacity, and while Spain held the European Union presidency, Solana in 1995 convened the First Euro-Mediterranean Conference of EU Foreign Ministers at which it was resolved to achieve cultural and economic unity with the Muslim countries of North Africa and the Middle East, for which purpose the conference established the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EMP) a.k.a. Barcelona or Euro-Mediterranean Process.

The worldwide proliferation of Fabian-inspired think-thanks started in the 1970s, ensured the steady spread of Fabian thinking throughout Europe, including Spain, where the Barcelona Centre for International Relations (CIDOB) was founded in 1973. As one of Spain’s most influential think-tanks, CIDOB pioneered Arab World Studies in Catalonia and is one of the institutions training researchers working in the field who are at the forefront of Europe’s Islamisation movement.

In 2000, the Catalan Socialist Narcis Serra, a former LSE research fellow and later Spanish Defence Minister and Vice-President of the Government, was appointed president of CIDOB. Serra was later joined by Jordi Vaquer i Fanes as director of the foundation. Vaquer holds a PhD in International Relations from the LSE where he wrote a thesis entitled Spanish Policy towards Morocco (1986-2002): The Impact of EC/EU Membership.

In 2004, CIDOB president Serra, whose main interests are global governance and foreign policy, set up the Barcelona Institute for International Studies (IBEI) which employs leading pro-Islamic figures such as LSE graduate Fred Halliday, author of Islam and the Myth of Confrontation, (2003), for purposes of subversion and propaganda.

CIDOB collaborates with other pro-Islamic organisations like the Royal ElcanoInstitute (established in 2001 after the model of Chatham House/RIIA), Asia House (est. 2001), European Institute of the Mediterranean (IEMed, est. 2002), Arab House and International Institute of Arab and Islamic World Studies (CA-IEAM, est. 2006), Mediterranean House (est. 2009), etc., and enjoys among others the support of the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (responsible for the creation of all of the above), the EU, Spanish Agency of International Cooperation, Spanish Ministry of Defence, Catalan Government, Barcelona City Council and a wide network of related authorities, organisations and institutions in Spain and other Mediterranean countries (especially Italy and France) involved in the Islamisation process.

CIDOB is also responsible for a number of prominent publications promoting Islamisation under the guise of “understanding,” “dialogue,” etc., such as the annual Mediterranean YearbookBibliographical Bulletin of the Arab World and CIDOB Magazine of Foreign Affairs.

In particular, CIDOB and similar Continental organisations set up or infiltrated by the LSE and other Fabian-controlled outfits, are partners of the Anna Lindh Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue between Cultures (ALF), set up in May 2004 at the Mid-Term Meeting of Euro-Mediterranean Foreign Ministers in Dublin with the object of promoting cultural and religious links between Europe and the Islamic Arab world. With a budget of €5 million, ALF has been able to set up branches in 43 countries operating at the centre of a network of over 2000 like-minded organisations. A number of LSE teachers and graduates around the world have received the Anna Lindh award for the study of European foreign policy on pro-Islamisation lines.

While thousands of think-tanks and other organisations have been quietly preparing the ground for the scientific “justification” and psychological acceptance of Islamisation, its latest political implementation is exemplified by the Mediterranean Union (a.k.a. Union for the Mediterranean) which expressly aims to achieve the political, economic and cultural union of the EU with Islamic North Africa and the Middle East.

The project was launched by French President Nicolas Sarkozy during his 2007 presidential campaign and was officially announcedat the Summit for the Mediterranean, Paris, on 13 July 2008, which was attended by 43 heads of state and government as well as by Amr Moussa of the Arab League; Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC); Jorge Sampaio of Alliance of Civilisations (AoC); and André Azoulay of Anna Lindh Foundation (ALF).

Sarkozy’s special adviser – who later became head of the Inter-ministerial Mission of the Union for the Mediterranean – was Henri Guaino, professor at the Paris Institute of Political Studies (IEP Paris), where Sarkozy was a student in 1979-81. The Paris Institute is an organisation run by the National Foundation of Political Science (FNSP), an outfit funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, and operates in partnership with other Rockefeller-associated outfits like the London School of Economics and the School of International and Public Affairs of Columbia University (of which Barack Obama is a graduate).

The Mediterranean Union (UM/UfM) project has enjoyed the full backing of the usual left-wing financial and academic interests. Already in September 2007, the Rockefeller-controlled Harvard Management Company (HMC), a subsidiary of Harvard which invests the university’s $32 billion endowment, launched its Middle East North Africa (MENA) Opportunities Fund in collaboration with the Egyptian private investment bank EFG Hermes, a founding member of the financial facility that bankrolls the UM project, the InfraMed Infrastructure Fund (Saleh, 2009).

EFG Hermes’ co-CEO was Yasser El-Mallawany, former manager of the Rockefellers’ Chase National Bank of Egypt, while the advisory committee of the MENA Opportunities Fund itself included Harvard Management Co. CEO Mohamed El-Erian, as well as Lord Jacob Rothschild, chairman, and Andrew Knight, director, of Rothschild Investment Trust Capital Partners (RITCP).

The board of directors of EFG Hermes Holding Co. includes figures with links to the Fabian LSE such as Thomas S. Volpe, economics graduate of Harvard and LSE and Charles McVeigh III, former member of the LSE financial markets committee.

Just under four months following the official launch of the MU project, on 7-9 November 2008, the European section of the Rockefellers’ Trilateral Commission held a meeting in Paris, chaired by LSE chairman Peter Sutherland. Its summary stated that Mr. Obama’s election was “setting the stage for a broader change worldwide”; that France was undergoing a similar situation while playing an active role in the change of the EU; that this “new thrust” was expressed, among other things, by the Mediterranean Union, and the initiatives taken “to harness financial and economic turmoil with efficient solutions”; and concluded that the Euro-Med Project was intended as “a model for the World” (Trilateral Commission, Meeting Summary).

Indeed, in his Cairo speech of 4 June 2009 entitled “A New Beginning,” in which he addressed the Muslim world, US President Barack Obama praised Islam’s “tradition of tolerance” in Muslim-occupied Spain, welcomed Turkey’s leadership in the pro-Islamic Alliance of Civilisations (AoC) project and announced a “new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world.” In December 2012, he appointed Mohamed El-Erian (see above) chair of his Global Development Council (Leondis, 2012).

Britain’s own Fabian Socialist regime had been involved in the Islamisation effort long before Sarkozy’s initiative:

·     In 2004, Fabian Foreign Secretary Jack Straw set up the Engaging with the Islamic World (EIW) Group as a department of the Foreign Office. By 2006, the group had a yearly budget of £8.5 million and supported the work of radical Islamists in the Middle East.  

·     In December 2004, in an address to the House of Commons, Fabian Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke in favour of Turkey’s entry into the European Union, welcoming the decision to begin entry negotiations as “a hugely important and welcome moment for Europe” and as the achievement of “an historic British objective” (Hansard, 20 Dec. 2004, cc. 1919-20).

·     In October 2005, Fabian Foreign Secretary Jack Straw chaired the EU General Affairs Council meeting with Turkey’s entry into the EU “at the top of his list” (Straw, p. 427).    

·     In November 2005, Fabian Prime Minister (and European President) Tony Blair presided over the Tenth Anniversary of the Euro-Mediterranean Conference, Barcelona.

·     In January 2006, under Fabian Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, the Foreign Office’s EIW Group launched the Festival of Muslim Cultures which ran until July 2007.

·     In July 2006, under Fabian Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Office’s EIW Group sponsored and facilitated a large gathering of European Islamist organisations in Turkey which concluded that all Muslims in Europe should abide by the Koran as a means of “enriching Europe” and setting an example for non-Muslims to follow.

·     In August 2006, in his Speech to the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles, Fabian Prime Minister Tony Blair praised the Koran as “progressive” and described medieval Muslim lands as “the standard-bearers of tolerance.” He later reaffirmed his belief that Islam was a “welcome contrast with the state of Christianity” and that “until around the European Renaissance, Islam was the greater repository of civilisedthought” (Blair, 2011, p. 347). Needless to say, it is precisely such (unfounded) statements by Western leaders that play into the hands of Islamists.

·     In November 2007, at the Opening Ceremony at the Bruges Campus, College of Europe, Bruges, Fabian Foreign Secretary David Miliband spoke in favour of unbreakable ties with Europe’s Muslim neighbour countries and inclusion of Turkey, the Middle East and North Africa, and stressed the need of developing shared institutions to overcome religious and cultural divides between Europe and Muslim countries (“EU ‘should expand beyond Europe’”, BBC News, 15 Nov. 2007).

Labour’s pro-Muslim policies are not only well-known, but have been admitted by prominent Muslim members of the party such as Sadiq Khan – a member of the Fabian Society executive – who in May 2010 declared that “Labour is, and has always been the Party of British Muslims” (“Khan: Labour’s the only way forward for British Muslims,” Left Foot Forward, 3 May 2010). Indeed, in January 2013, Miliband appointed Khan Shadow Minister for London and leader of Labour’s election campaign.

Clearly, there has been active participation by leading Fabians in an orchestrated international drive to:

·     Cover up Islam’s traditional hostility to the Western world.

·     Construct Islam as a “progressive” system.

·     Promote Muslim domination of medieval Christian countries as a “model” for the future.

·     Enforce progressively closer political, economic and cultural union of Europe with the Islamic world.

·     Promote Muslim culture in Britain and abroad.

·     Appoint Muslims to key positions in political, financial and other influential organisations.

The Fabians’ London School of Economics itself with its closely linked Department of International Relations and European Institute has been running “research,” courses, seminars, workshops, lectures and other events promoting “advanced thinking” on the EU and EU-Muslim relations. In 2010, a new pro-Islamic outfit going by the name of “Centre for Middle Eastern Studies” was added to the LSE arsenal.

The pro-Islamic stand of the LSE and related academic institutions is demonstrated by their receipt of vast sums of money from Islamic regimes (Pollard, 2011). As shown above, LSE chairman Peter Sutherland is a key promoter of Islamisation in Europe. In an address to the International Eucharistic Congress in June 2012, Sutherland declared that expecting Muslims to adapt to Western culture is “negativism” (Sutherland, 2012, p.8). A few days later, he infamously called on the European Union to “do its best” to “undermine the homogeneity” of member states (Select Committee on the European Union, p. 25).

The LSE’s close links to subversive Islamic regimes were further exposed in 2011 when leaked diplomatic cables revealed that the son of Libyan dictator Gaddafi, Saifal-Islam, had arranged for 400 “future leaders” of Libya to receive leadership and management training at the LSE (Roberts, 2011).

Meanwhile, on 7 March 2013, Chatham House held a conference entitled “Understanding Counter-Jihad Extremism” purporting to discuss groups opposed to Islamisation like the English Defence League (EDL), which are deemed “extremist.” With Fabian speakers like Sunder Katwala, Gavin Shuker (MP for Luton South) and their collaborator and Chatham House associate fellow Matthew Goodwin, the conference was a Fabian event and clearly exposes the Fabian Society as a trend-setter for establishment disapproval of the British public’s legitimate opposition to Islamisation.

The Fabian web of subversion

The Fabian Society pursues the above policies through a worldwide spider-web of organisations at the centre of which there are a few dozen key institutions it has founded or over which it exerts direct or indirect control or influence, and of which we may give the following illustrative sample:

The Royal Economic Society (RES). Founded in 1890 as the British Economic Association by Fabian leader Bernard Shaw, the RES has always been run by members and collaborators of the Fabian Society, notably Lord Haldane, W H Beveridge, J M Keynes and R Portes.

The London School of Economics (LSE). Founded in 1895 by the Fabian Society and later funded by the Rockefellers. Operates in partnership with other Rockefeller-associated outfits like the Institute of Political Studies (IEP Paris) and the School of International and Public Affairs of Columbia University.

The LSE is currently chaired by Peter Sutherland, who is also chairman of Goldman Sachs International (the London-based HQ of the US investment banking group’s European operations), honorary chairman of the Trilateral Commission (Europe) and head of the UN Global Forum on Migration and Development. This clearly shows that the LSE interlocks with organisations representing the leading elements of international finance, as well as with the United Nations, an organisation the Fabian Society and its front organisation, the Labour Party, are promoting as a world government in the making.

Imperial College London. Founded in 1907 by Sidney Webb with the assistance of his friend Lord Haldane and their collaborator Lord Rosebery (who also served as president of the Fabians’ LSE and chancellor of London University), and with funds from Wernher, Beit (see above). Sir Evelyn de Rothschild has been a governor of Imperial College as well as of the LSE.

National Union of Students (NUS). Co-founded in 1922 by the LSE and London University (another Fabian-controlled institution with which the LSE had merged earlier).NUS is also a close collaborator of the Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS). See also Socialism Exposed.

National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR). Founded in 1938, NIESR is a Fabian-Keynesian outfit set up with Rockefeller funds by LSE graduate and banker Josiah Stamp. Its leading figures have includedLSE Professor of Economics and Political Science Tomothy Besley (chairman); Nicholas Monk, son of Fabian Society general secretary Bosworth Monk (president); Lord Burns, a fellow of the London School of Business, vice-president of the Royal Economic Society and director of the left-wing Pearson Group (president); and Jonathan Portes (director).

Oxfam. Co-founded in 1942 by Gilbert Murray, a friend of Fabian luminaries like G. B. Shaw and H. G. Wells and president of the Fabian organisation League of Nations Society (LNS).

London Business School (LBS), University of London. Founded in 1965 by representatives of the Fabian-controlled LSE and Imperial College.

Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). Founded in 1965 under the government of former Fabian Society chairman Harold Wilson and having as chief executive leading Fabian Michael (later Lord) Young, who alone was responsible for the creation of over 60 like-minded organisations.

The ESRC was originally known as Social Science Research Council (SSRC) and was clearly a clone of the US organisation of the same name. The latter was founded in 1923 by Charles E. Merriam, who was associated with the American Fabian League and the London Fabian Society, in collaboration with the American Economic Association, itself founded by Fabian Society founders Thomas Davidson and Sidney Webb (Martin, pp. 123-4, 281).

While the American SSRC has been bankrolled by the Rockefellers and associated interests, its British counterpart has been funded by the Department for Business. The two organisations have always maintained close links to each other and to the LSE.

The John Smith Memorial Fund (JSMF). Founded in 1966 to promote the ideas of former Fabian and Labour leader John Smith. Its advisory board includes Fabians like Lord Dubbs, former Fabian Society chairman.

The Runnymede Trust. Set up in 1968 by Fabian Society honorary treasurer (later chairman) Anthony Lester and currently chaired by LSE graduate and founder of the Cultural Diversity Network, Clive Jones (see below).

Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), which has been described as an “interface between academia and the policy community,” was established in 1983 by Richard Portes, a former Rhodes Scholar and Harvard professor of economics with close links to Rockefeller interests and the Fabian Society, currently chairman of the International Growth Centre’s (an LSE outfit) Global Crisis Group. CEPR is funded by the Rockefellers’ JP Morgan and Citigroup and associated left-wing banks like UBS, Barclays, Bank of England, Bank for International Settlements and European Central Bank.  

The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). Founded in 1988 with former LSE lecturer and Fabian Society chairman Tessa Blackstone, as chairman of the board of trustees. Advised by bodies like the Progressive Migration Advisory Group whose members include former Fabian Society general secretary Sunder Katwala.

Progress, a Blairite (New Labour) think-tank and pressure group co-founded in 1996 by Derek Draper and Liam Byrne. Draper was a top lobbyist with Brussels-based PR and government lobbying firm GPC Market Access which was owned by the Anglo-American PR consultancy Countrywide Porter Novelli, while Byrne, a former Fulbright Scholar at Harvard Business School, was a banker with N M Rothschild & Sons as well as a member of the Fabian Society.

Progress directors, chairmen and presidents have included leading Fabians like Fabian Society general secretary and later chairman Stephen Twigg; Jessica Asato, chairman of the Fabian Research and Publications Committee; and various other Fabian Society members, supporters, partners and collaborators such as Richard Angell, Dan Jarvis, Alison McGovern and John Woodcock. Progress sponsors, partners and collaborators include Fabian organisations like the Fabian Society, British Future and IPPR. Being affiliated with the Labour Party, Progress is a major source of Fabian influence on Labour after the Fabian Society.

The Smith Institute. Named after John Smith (see above), the institute was founded in 1997 by the Fabian Gordon Brown, a protégé of John Smith.

Policy Network. Founded in 1999 by Fabian Socialist Prime Minister Tony Blair, Germany’s Social Democrat Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and America’s Democratic President Bill Clinton, to promote international Socialism. Chaired by Fabian Lord Mandelson.

The Creative Diversity Network (CDN). Founded in 2000 as the Cultural Diversity Network by Carlton TV chief executive Clive Jones, the CDN is a coalition of television broadcasters ITV, BBC, ITN, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky, promoting cultural diversity.

Policy Exchange, established 2002. Although described as a “conservative think-tank,” we find among its senior research fellows the likes of John Willman, former general secretary of the Fabian Society.

Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD). Founded in 2006 by LSE chairman Peter Sutherland at the instigation of Rockefeller-lieutenant and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

British Future. Founded in 2007 and directed by the Fabian Sunder Katwala. Co-funded by LSE-graduate George Soros’ Open Society Foundation.

Migration Advisory Committee (MAC). Founded in 2007 by Fabian Home Secretary John Reid. Professor David Metcalf, Emeritus Professor at the Centre for Economic Performance at the LSE, was appointed chairman from December 2007 to August 2013.

UK Border Agency (UKBA). Formed in 2008 as the Labour Government’s border control agency by Fabian Immigration Minister and Progress co-founder Liam Byrne, a former Rothschild banker who is also co-founder of the Young Fabians magazine Anticipations.

Needless to say, the activities of the above organisations are largely taking place without the participation, knowledge or approval of the general public and often contrary to its wishes and interests. The involvement of charity organisations in Fabian schemes is particularly reprehensible, given that it exploits the unsuspecting public’s generosity in the cause of covert political agendas that ultimately work against the interests of the public.

It follows that the Fabian Society belongs to a network of subversive organisations seeking to expand their power and influence and impose an undemocratic agenda on Britain, Europe and the world by undemocratic means and in collaboration with undemocratic international money interests. This network and its activities must be indicted, exposed and combated by all citizens who value truth, democracy and freedom.  

In the words of Eric Butler, the advance of the undemocratic Left or Communism “is not going to be halted until the Fabian socialist smokescreen is swept away by effective exposure and, even more important, the Fabian economic, financial and political policies are first halted and then reversed” (Butler, p. 47).

Aldrich, Richard J., “OSS, CIA and European Unity: The American Committee on United Europe, 1948-60,” International History Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, London, Nov. 1995; also in Diplomacy & Statecraft, Vol. 8, No. 1, London, March 1997, pp. 184-227.

Barker, Ernest, Political Thought in England from Herbert Spencer to the Present Day, Oxford, 1915, quoted in Pease, p. 186.

Bauer, Peter Thomas, Dissent on Development, London, 1976.

Blair, Tony, quoted in “A piece of Fabian history unveiled at LSE,” LSE News and Media, 20 April 2006.

Blair, Tony, A Journey, London, 2011.

Britain, Ian, Fabianism and culture, Cambridge, 1982.

Butler, Eric D., The Fabian Socialist Contribution to the Communist Advance, Melbourne, 1964.

Callaghan, John, The Labour Party and Foreign Policy: A History, Abingdon, Oxon, 2007.

CFMEB (Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain), The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain: The Parekh Report, London, 2000.

Cole, G. D. H., “The Fabian Society, Past and Present,” Fabian Tract No. 258, London, 1942.

Cole, Margaret, The Story of Fabian Socialism, London, 1961.

Corbineau, Bernard, “Le dialogue euro-arabe, instance du nouvel ordre international (1973-1978),” Revue française de science politique, 1980, vol. 30, Nr. 3, pp. 560-598.

De Villemarest, Pierre, Facts & Chronicles Denied To The Public, vol. 2, 2003, English trans. Slough, Berkshire, 2004.

Ferguson, Niall, The House of Rothschild, 2 vols., New York, NY, 2000.

Green, Andrew, “Paying the price for a decade of deception,” Daily Mail, 12 Feb. 2010).

Griffin, G. Edward, The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations, Belmont, MA, 1964.

Harrop Andrew, “Home affairs: too hot to handle?” in John Denham, ed., The Shape of Things to Come: Labour’s New Thinking, London, 2012, pp. 95-104.

Harrop, Andrew, “Fabian review of the year,” Fabian Review, 21 Dec. 2012. 

Healey, Denis, The Time of My Life, London, 2006.

Henderson, Archibald, George Bernard Shaw: His Life And Works, A Critical Biography, Cincinnati, OH, 1911.

Holroyd, Michael, Bernard Shaw, 3 vols., London, 1991.

Jenkinson, Sofie, “Ed Miliband’s speech to the Fabian Society New Year Conference 2013,” Fabian Society, 12 January 2013.

Jenkinson, Sofie, ed., Remaking the State: How should Labour govern?, London, February 2013.

Jolley, Rachel and Katwala, Sunder, “Hopes and Fears: The British Future State of the Nation Report,” January 2012.

Joppke, Christian, Immigration and the Nation-State, New York, NY, 1999.

Katwala, Sunder, “What must be done?” Guardian, 21 December, 2005.

King-Hall, Stephen, Chatham House: A Brief Account of the Origins, Purposes, and Methods of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, 1937.

Laidler, Harry W., History of Socialism, New York, NY, 1968.

Lawson, Neal, “Labour must admit it messed up on the economy.” Guardian, 13 Jan. 2012).

Lenin, V. I., Collected Works (LCW), 45 vols., Moscow, 1960-70.

Leondis, Alexis, “Obama Picks El-Erian to Lead Global Development Council,” Bloomberg News, 24 Dec. 2012.

Martin, Rose, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A., Chicago, IL, 1966.

Marx, K. & Engels, F., Selected Works (MESW) [English], 3 vols., Moscow, 1969.

McKinstry, Leo, “How the Government has declared war on white English people,” Daily Express, 9 Aug. 2007.

Monnet, Jean, Memoirs, London, 1978.

Olivier, Sydney, “Hindu-Moslem Hostility: The New Bengal Regulations” (Letters to the Editor), The Times, July 10, 1926, p. 10.

Patterson, Sheila, Immigration and Race Relations in Britain 1960-1967, London, 1969.

Pease, Edward, R., History of the Fabian Society: The Origins of English Socialism, New York, NY, 1916.

Phillips, Melanie, “The outrageous truth slips out: Labour cynically plotted to transform the entire make-up of Britain without telling us,” Daily Mail, 28 Oct. 2009.

PIU/Home Office, “Preliminary Report On Migration”, 11 July 2000, published 18 Jan. 2010.

Pollard, Stephen, “Libya and the LSE: Large Arab gifts to universities lead to ‘hostile’ teaching,” Daily Telegraph, 3 Mar. 2011.

Pugh, Patricia, Educate, Agitate, Organize: 100 Years of Fabian Socialism, London, 1984.

Quigley, Carroll, The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden, San Pedro, CA, 1981.

Quilligan, James Bernard, “The Brandt Equation: 21st Century Blueprint for the New Global Economy,” Philadelphia, PA, 2002.

Rappaport, Helen, Conspirator: Lenin in Exile, London, 2009.

Ratiu, Ioan, The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy, Richmond, 2012.

Roberts, Laura, “LSE struck deal to train Libya’s future leaders,” Daily Telegraph, 3 Mar. 2011.

Rockefeller, David, Memoirs, New York, NY, 2002.

Rose, Kenneth, Elusive Rothschild: The Life of Victor, Third Baron, London, 2003.

Saleh, Heba, “Med investment project launched,” Financial Times, 1 May 2009.

Schumpeter, Joseph A., Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 1942, 3rd edn., New York, NY, 1950.

Select Committee on the European Union, House of Lords, “Inquiry on Global Approach to Migration and Mobility, 20 Jun. 2012,” uncorrected transcript, published 22 June 2012.

Shaw, G. B., “The Early History of the Fabian Society,” Fabian Tract No. 41, London, 1892.

Shaw, G. B., quoted in “Shaw and Lady Astor in Poland from Russia,” The Times, 1 Aug. 1931.

Shell, Tony, “Progressive Politics: Being Rid of the English,” September 2011.

Shell, Tony, “Killing the English,” July 2012.

Sklar, Holly, Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Government, Boston, MA, 1980.

Stone-Lee, Ollie, “1975 economic fears are laid bare,” BBC News, 29 Dec. 2005.

Sutherland, Peter, “A Constructive Attitude to Migration is a Moral Issue,” Address to the International Eucharistic Congress, Dublin, 15 June 2012.

Sutton, Antony C., The Federal Reserve Conspiracy, first published in 1995, reprinted in Carson City, NV, 2005.

Trilateral Commission (Europe), Meeting Summary, 32nd European Regional Meeting, Paris, 7-9 November 2008.

Walicki, Andrzej, Marxism and the Leap to the Kingdom of Freedom: The Rise and Fall of the Communist Utopia, Stanford, CA, 1995.

Webb, Beatrice, Our Partnership, Drake, B. and Cole, M. eds., London, 1948.

Wells, H. G., Russia in the Shadows, 1920, reprint Forgotten Books, 2012.

West, Karl, “Tata’s British Empire – The Indian conglomerate is our biggest manufacturer but has enjoyed mixed fortunes, says Karl west,” The Sunday Times, 23 Sept. 2012.

Whitehead, Tom, “Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser,” Daily Telegraph, 23 Oct. 2009.

Whitehead, Tom, “Labour’s ‘secret plan’ to lure migrants,” Daily Telegraph, 9 Feb. 2010.   

Ye’or, Bat, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Madison, NJ, 2006.

This article came from a website that is no longer available. I have reproduced it here as it is one of the best I have seen that details the Fabian Society. DD