Understanding Lawful Rebellion.

By John Hurst. The Magna Carta Society.


1. Understanding (“Interpreting”) common law statutes such as Magna Carta and Acts of Parliament is governed by certain common law rules and the Interpretation Act 1978. So is understanding the decisions (“Judgements”) made by the Courts. 

2. Knowing something of these rules will go a long way towards knowing what “Lawful Rebellion” is and how it was invoked in 2001 by the Magna Carta Society. 

3. This extract from one of the leading authors on interpretation explain how statutes should be interpreted, not on their own, but a part of the whole body of the law:

“Implied ancillary rules

‘ I end this opening chapter by pointing out that elements in the legal thrust of an enactment may be left unexpressed by the drafter. Often, they are to be treated as imported because of a general presumption based on the nature of legislation. This is that, unless the contrary intention appears, an enactment by implication imports any principle or rule of law (whether statutory or non-statutory) which prevails in the territory to which the enactment extends and is relevant to its operation in that territory. This may be referred to as an ‘implied ancillary rule’.

An Act of Parliament is not a statement in a vacuum. Parliament intends its Act to be read and applied within the context of the existing, corpus juris, or body of law…”.

Page 99. F.A.R. Bennion.  Understanding Common Law Legislation. Oxford University Press 2009.

4. Here are parts of the Interpretation Act 1978 on these topics:

S.3 Judicial notice.

Every Act is a public Act to be judicially noticed as such, unless the contrary is expressly provided by the Act…”.

“ s.12 Continuity of powers and duties.

(1) Where an Act confers a power or imposes a duty it is implied, unless the contrary intention appears, that the power may be exercised, or the duty is to be performed, from time to time as occasion requires.

(2) Where an Act confers a power or imposes a duty on the holder of an office as such, it is implied, unless the contrary intention appears, that the power may be exercised, or the duty is to be performed, by the holder for the time being of the office…”.

5. Here is an important caveat on s.3 to this Act which illustrates to point that the whole Act must be read in order to properly understand it, it only applies to all Acts passed after 1850 and 1889….

SCHEDULE 2 Application of Act to Existing Enactments

6. This extract explains from Bennion covers the authority of the Courts to determine what the law is in any given Judgement:

“ It is the function of the court alone authoritatively to declare the legal meaning of an enactment. If anyone else, such as its drafter or the politician promoting it, purports to lay down what the legal meaning is the court may react adversely, regarding this as an encroachment on its constitutional sphere. Lord Wilberforce stated the classic position:

‘Legislation in England is passed by Parliament, and put in the form of written words. This legislation is given legal effect on subjects by virtue of judicial decision, and it is the function of the courts to say what the application of words to particular cases or particular individuals is to be. This power, which has been devolved on the judges from the earliest times, is an essential part of the constitutional process by which subjects are brought under the rule of law—as distinct from the rule of the king or the rule of Parliament; and it would be a degradation of that process if the courts were to be merely a reflecting mirror of what some other interpretation agency might say . . .”. 

Page 80. Bennion 2009.

7. As to how a properly directed Court makes its decision, having heard evidence from the parties in sworn statements or affidavits, we need to know what the rules of “Ratio decidendi”, “Obiter” and “Stare decisis” are:

“ Ratio decidendi

Ratio decidendi (Latin plural rationes decidendi) is a Latin phrase meaning “the reason” or “the rationale for the decision”. The ratio decidendi is “the point in a case that determines the judgement”[1] or “the principle that the case establishes”.[2]
In other words, ratio decidendi is a legal rule derived from, and consistent with, those parts of legal reasoning within a judgment on which the outcome of the case depends.
It is a legal phrase which refers to the legal, moral, political and social principles used by a court to compose the rationale of a particular judgment. Unlike obiter dicta, the ratio decidendi is, as a general rule, binding on courts of lower and later jurisdiction—through the doctrine of stare decisis…”.

8. Having got the interpretation right, what can we say about the authority of Magna Carta today? Unusually for the BBC, they got it about right in this Horrible History sketch:

9. Regarding Article 61 of Magna Carta, treaties have Articles, it contains two seperate Ratio decidendi. 

10. The first is the subjects remedy by petitioning the House of Lords to form a Barons Committee to pass Judgement on the Sovereign. 

11. The second is contained in the last sentence which confirms that “The King can do no wrong” and if he does the Courts will take no notice of it because the wrong deed is void in law. This is the basis of what is today known as “Judicial Review”

12. This presentation covers the activation of a Barons Committee in 2001:

Note that the obligations that all loyal subjects have are defined in the Article. It is a rule of interpretation known as Expressio unius est exclusio alterius that a given defninition excludes all others:

13. Here is what Aricle 61 of Magna Carta states at Article 61:

“ Those five–and–twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole land, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen and children;……

14. The Constitutionalists, of whom I am a member confine our resitance to what is specfied in the Article.

15. The “Freemen on the Land” interpret Article 61 to in addition allow a general rejecion of the authority of all Acts of Parliament.

16. I invite any proponent of the Freeman Community to put their case.

John Hurst.  The Magna Carta Society.

Name change proposal

The English Democrat Party to The English Constitutional Party

Name change proposal 

“The English Constitutional Party” 
The English have a Common Law Constitution and Bill of Rights, Declaration of Rights and had a Convention that created these.  The English Constitution protects the unalienable rights of the subjects of the Realm of England.  The British do not have a Constitution and have sort to dismantle by way of removing our Constitution from the Education system including the Law Bar Exams.  The British sort to impose a European Union Constitution on the English, unlawfully.   The enemy – The British – hate any reference to our Bill of Rights and or Constitution.  They fear the Constitution as Chinese Communist Party fears the peoples freedom.  The British are globalists.  In my view, England and the English are Constitutionalists.  

The name “democrats” has negative influence and negative connotations.  Our Constitution and the Rule of Law (constitutional law) is above politics (unless  you’re British).  Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner.  Democracy sits below, not above the Constitution. 

“The English National Party” 

This name sounds too much like National Socialists (Nazi).  We do not support Socialists or communism (both big government).   The name The English National Party is in my view and the view of many members is more of an issue “brand wise”  than that of The English Constitutional Party. The latter having many positive connotations including support from our American Allies including The Proclamation of Captive Nations July 17th 2020.  If you want England to be free, we need the support of the most pwerful nation on earth, that we the English, Englandnised.  Whilst the British seek to Europeanise England.  Positive Non Interventionism is the way forward, by way of the English Constitution.  

Please send the above request to the National Council of the English Democrats and if refused by the NC ask for it to be a proposal made by members to members at Conference.

send to stephenmorris@englishdemocrats.party



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 


BS98 1TL



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″


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


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.