“The Fabian Society has in view the advance of Socialism.”
( Fabian Tract No. 3, 1885 )
Socialism’s true origin, intent and purpose
Few Britons today are aware of the existence of the Fabian Society and even fewer are familiar with its ideology, aims, influence and power. As its own documents show, the Society has always aimed to establish a Socialist regime controlled by itself.
Contrary to current political mythology (or disinformation) which has it that Socialism was a working-class movement, the fact is that it originated with the liberal capitalist middle classes where the Fabian Society was at home.
The leading elements of liberal capitalism – the big businessmen, industrialists and bankers – who had amassed great wealth on the back of the industrial revolution, aimed to strengthen their position of power and influence by two means: (1) by monopolizing finance, economy and politics; and (2) by controlling the growing urban working class.
While the monopolisation of finance, economy and politics could only be achieved by the centralization of capital, means of production, etc., the working class could only be controlled through organization and promises of a larger share in resources. These measures formed the core of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels ’Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848). Both authors were middle class and Engels, Marx’s financial supporter, was a wealthy textile industrialist.
Fabianism is a radical London-based movement initiated in the 1880s for the purpose of subverting the existing order and establishing a Socialist World Government controlled by its leaders and by the financial interests associated with them.
London at the time was a centre of liberal capitalism – itself a subversive movement – as well as of radical left-wing agitation which sought to subvert the former. The main radical organisation promoting Socialism in England was the International Working Men’s Association (IWMA, a.k.a. “First International”), established in 1864 by Karl Marx.
Marx’s doctrines were initially only available in German and French, and had little impact on the British public. His disciple Henry Hyndman was the first to popularise the teachings of Marx and other German Socialists in the English language. Hyndman was also the founder in 1881 of the Social Democratic Federation (Laidler, p. 186).
The elements responsible for founding the Fabian Society were themselves influenced by Marxism and belonged to Social Democratic Federation circles. What set the Fabian Society apart from earlier Socialist organisations like the IWMA and SDF was the method by which it sought to attain its objective. While other Socialists talked of revolution, the Fabians resolved to build Socialism gradually and by stealth.
According to one of its leaders, the Fabian Society was “organised for thought and discussion, and not for electoral action which it leaves to other bodies, though it encourages its members, in their individual capacities, to play an active part in the work of these other bodies” (G. D. H., Cole, 1942).
Wolf in sheep’s clothing
The subversive nature of the Fabian project is illustrated by the Fabian Window, a stained-glass composition showing Fabian leaders Edward R. Pease, Sidney Webb and Bernard Shaw (in the green coat) forging a new world out of the old, while other Fabians kneel worshipfully before a stack of Fabian writings. The Fabian Window was commissioned by Shaw in 1910 and is currently located at the London School of Economics. Though its theme purports to be humorous, the fact is that, as admitted by Bernard Shaw, humour or what he described as “freely laughing at ourselves” was a distinguishing habit of the Fabians (Pease, p. 34). In fact, humour was a tactic used by Fabians to conceal the deadly earnest of their intentions.
Indeed, there is nothing humorous about a semi-secret organisation working to destroy Western civilisation. Moreover, the Fabian Window is undeniably symbolic and as such it is based on fact: despite claims to being “scientific,” Socialism proved to be riddled with internal inconsistencies and contradictions rendering commitment to its tenets a matter of faith rather than reason.
As observed by the economist P. T. Bauer, Socialism turned out to be a kind of faith-based messianic religion that promised salvation on earth (Bauer, p. 176). In the Fabian case, making Socialism (or Fabianism) into a quasi-religious movement was a conscious objective of the Fabian leadership as shown by Shaw’s comments to the effect that the Fabians “must make a religion of Socialism” (Henderson, p. 488). Other Fabian leaders similarly spoke of Socialism as a “new social religion”. Thus, the Fabians’ adulatory attitude towards Fabian writings depicted in the Window accurately portrays the cult-like nature of Socialism in general and of Fabian Socialism, in particular.
The window also shows, in the background (above the globe), the Fabian “coat-of-arms” consisting of a wolf wearing a sheepskin and bearing a red standard with the initials “F.S.” Again, this symbolism is undeniably based on the fact of the Fabian tactic of “permeation” and of achieving its ends by stealth.
Finally, the Society’s Iranian logo may well be a hidden reference to the reconstruction of the world order in line with international oil interests. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later British Petroleum) was among the corporate members of the Royal Institute of International Affairs a.k.a. Chatham House (King-Hall, p. 140), an organisation co-founded by members of the Fabian Society and the Society has retained close links to oil interests.
The Fabians and subversive money interests
The main body through which the Fabian Society operated in the beginning was the Liberal Party, this being the centre-left party at the time. However, the Fabians’ involvement with Liberal politics also linked them with liberal capitalist interests, regular contact with whom was nurtured through various Fabian creations such as the Coefficients Dining Club (Quigley, pp. 137-8; cf. M. Cole, p. 118).
That the Fabians consciously sought the company, collaboration and support of the wealthy and powerful is evident from Fabian writings such as Beatrice Webb’s Our Partnership, which abound in references to “catching millionaires”, “wire-pulling”, “moving all the forces we have control over”, while at the same time taking care to “appear disinterested” and claiming to be “humble folk whom nobody suspects of power” (Webb, 1948).
In fact, the Webbs were in regular touch with the likes of Arthur Balfour and Richard Haldane (a member of the Fabian Society) who served as contacts between the Fabians and the powerful and wealthy. As their social circle expanded, the Webbs’ frequent dinners, informal meetings, and “little parties” enabled them to mingle with leading members of the ruling elite like Lord Rosebery, Julius Wernher (of the gold and diamond mining company Wernher, Beit & Co.) and Lord Rothschild, and talk them into backing their subversive projects.
It is essential to understand, however, that this was far from being a one-way affair. The leading elements of liberal capitalism – the big businessmen, industrialists and bankers – who had amassed great wealth in the wake of the industrial revolution, were no selfless philanthropists. They aimed to strengthen their own position of power and influence by two means: (1) by monopolising finance, economy and politics; and (2) by controlling the growing urban working class.
The first aim was to be achieved by the centralisation of capital, means of production, etc. The second was to be gained through organising the workers and through promises of a larger share in resources. These aims coincided with those of the Socialist movement of which the Fabians aimed to become the leading element.
As pointed out by H. G. Wells, big business was by no means antipathetic to Communism as “the larger big business grows the more it approximates to Collectivism” (Wells, p. 100). Similarly, Joseph A Schumpeter, who taught David Rockefeller at Harvard, wrote :
The true pacemakers of socialism were not the intellectuals or agitators who preached it but the Vanderbilts, Carnegies and Rockefellers (Schumpeter, p. 134).
Indeed, we find that the core of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) consisted of monopolistic capitalist policies like the centralisation of capital and the organisation of workers.
Marx and Engels had begun their career as journalists working for liberal capitalist interests. Marx later worked for the New York Tribune, whose owner, Horace Greeley and editor, Charles Anderson Dana were close collaborators of Clinton Roosevelt (Sutton, 1995, p. 45), a radical Democrat member of the well-known Roosevelt Clan whose main areas of interest were banking and politics and who were close allies of the Vanderbilts.
The Fabian Society not only adopted Marx and Engels’ policies but was closely connected with the same kind of interests :
Hubert Bland, a bank-employee-turned-journalist, worked for the London Sunday Chronicle, a paper owned by newspaper magnate Edward Hulton, formerly of the LiberalManchester Guardian. Bland was a co-founder of the Fabian Society in 1884 and became a member of its executive and its long-serving treasurer. He also recruited his friend and fellow journalist Bernard Shaw.
Shaw was working for the London Pall Mall Gazette, where leading Liberal William T. Stead served as editor and Alfred (later Lord) Milner as his assistant. Both Stead and Milner were close to diamond magnate and Rothschild associate Cecil Rhodes and were involved in the formation of the influential secret organisation known as the Milner Group. Having been recruited to the Fabian Society by his friend Bland in 1884, Shaw recruited Annie Besant and his friends Sidney Webb, Sydney Olivier and Graham Wallas in 1885 and 1886.
Tellingly, the Fabians were also adept at securing a higher social and financial position for themselves – which shows that the “equitable share of natural and acquired advantages” and the “complete substitution of public property for private property” preached in the Fabian Basis and elsewhere were not regarded by Fabians as binding on themselves.
Shaw’s friend and fellow Fabian Society leader Sidney Webb married Beatrice, daughter of Richard Potter, a wealthy financier with international connections who served as chairman of the Great Western and Grand Trunk Railways of England and Canada. Beatrice was also a close friend of Rothschild associate and Conservative Prime Minister Arthur Balfour. The Great Western Railways (GWR) supported Webb’s fledgling London School of Economics by booking courses for members of its staff at the school and Webb also used his wife’s other connections to further his Fabian agendas.
Shaw himself married Charlotte, daughter of Horace Payne-Townshend (a wealthy Stock Exchange investor), who was one of the financial backers of the Fabian Society. Shaw was employed by millionaire William Waldorf (later Lord) Astor, owner of the Pall Mall Gazette, and became a close friend of the latter’s son (and Milner Group leader) Waldorf and his wife Nancy. Interviews with both Shaw and Webb promoting Socialist ideas were published by the Pall Mall and St. James’s Gazettes.
As Shaw, Webb, Olivier and Wallas became the Fabian Society’s dominant “Big Four,” it becomes clear that the Society originated as a private organisation run by elements in the employ of media outlets representing liberal capitalist interests. Indeed, the Society’s key financial backers included John Passmore Edwards, an associate of textile manufacturer and leader of the Liberal “Manchester School,” Richard Cobden himself. For example, in the 1890s, Passmore Edwards donated £10,000 for a new building for the Fabians’ London School of Economics (LSE) (Webb. p. 93).
The Fabians were also linked with the Manchester School through Harold Cox, a member of the Fabian Society who was a follower of Manchester Liberalism, secretary of the Cobden Club and editor of the influential quarterly Edinburgh Review, as well as a collaborator of Sidney Webb (Webb, p. 502).
It follows that both Karl Marx and the Fabian Society were bankrolled by industrial interests with links to the left-wing Manchester School and the media world.
These already powerful interests were allies of the Rothschild banking family which had close links to the shadowy world of Manchester’s left-wing media, industry and finance: the Rothschilds’ first port of call in England had been Manchester, where the group’s patriarch Nathan Meyer started his career in the textile trade. They had a long tradition of support for Liberal causes, several leading members of the group having served as Liberal members of parliament.
The Fabian Society and Rothschild interests
The Fabian Society was in close touch with the Rothschilds both directly and through go-betweens like Lord Arthur Balfour. The Balfours were among the chief representatives of Britain’s money power and were involved in the creation of organisations advancing its interests from the Anglo-American League and the Pilgrims Society to Imperial College and the League of Nations. While his brother Gerald was President of the Board of Trade, Arthur Balfour served as President of the Local Government Board and later as Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. While in these posts, he conferred on a regular basis with both Lord Natty Rothschild and the Fabian leadership and used his position to advance their agendas.
Lord Rothschild himself was personally involved, with Sidney Webb, in the restructuring of the University of London into which the Fabians’ London School of Economics (LSE) was incorporated in 1898. He also provided funds for the LSE and served as its third president, after his relative Lord Rosebery (Webb, pp. 182, 214).
The LSE continues to maintain close links with Rothschild and allied interests. For example, LSE’s Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment is funded by the Grantham Foundation, whose founder Jeremy Grantham of the investment management firm Grantham, Mayo & Otterloo (GMO) was an economist at Rothschild-controlled Royal Dutch Shell; the Grantham Institute’s advisory board includes Sir Evelyn de Rothschild of EL Rothschild Ltd. and Vikram Singh Mehta of Shell Companies, India; Rothschild, Shell, Barclays, Goldman Sachs, J. P. Morgan and Morgan Stanley are members of the LSE Careers Patron Group; Peter Sutherland, chairman of Goldman Sachs International, is chairman of the LSE, etc.
The Fabian Society and the Tata Group
One of the Fabians’ links to industrial interests was the Indian textile magnate Jamsetji Tata whom Sidney and Beatrice Webb helped to set up a company town around his newly acquired steel works at Bombay, where the Fabians had set up a local Fabian society. In 1912, Tata endowments funded the Sir RatanTata Department at the LSE, which later became the Department of Social Sciences, whose first lecturer was Fabian Society member and later New Fabian Research Bureau chairman Clement Attlee (West, 2012).
The Fabian Society and the Rowntree Clan
Another Fabian line of connection with industrial interests were the chocolate manufacturers Rowntree’s. The company’s head Joseph Rowntree, who had founded various charitable trusts in 1904, financed the Fabian Society’s Commission for the Prevention of Destitution and from 1915 provided funds for the general work of the Society as well as for its Research Department and special inquiries, including the one that produced International Government (Pugh, p. 129); his sonSeebohm Rowntree, who in addition to being an industrialist was also an avid social reformer, collaborated with Beatrice Webb on the Royal Commission on the Poor Law 1905-9 (Webb, p. 332), and Rowntree trusts have funded Fabian projects ever since.
The Fabian Society and Cassel interests
The Fabian Society was also connected with the international banker and financier Sir Ernest Cassel, who was an associate of Rothschild, Schiff and Morgan interests. Cassel was persuaded by his friend Lord Richard Haldane, a member of the Fabians’ Coefficients dining club and, from 1925, Fabian Society member, to bequeath large sums to the LSE (Butler, p. 19).
When the Sir Ernest Cassel Educational Trust was set up in 1919, Haldane, Liberal leader Herbert Asquith (a friend of Cassel and Bernard Shaw) and Lord Balfour (a close friend of Beatrice Webb and Shaw) were appointed trustees. In 1924, the Trust providedsubstantial grants to the LSE, establishing among others the Sir Ernest Cassel Chair of International Relations (later International Relations Department).
The Fabian Society and Rockefeller interests
The Fabian Society has been particularly close to the Rockefellers who are covert Fabian Socialists. David Rockefeller wrote a sympathetic senior thesis on Fabian Socialism at Harvard (“Destitution Through Fabian Eyes”, 1936) and studied left-wing economics at the Fabian Society’s London School of Economics. Not surprisingly, the Rockefellers have funded countless Fabian projects, including the LSE. Already in the late 1920s and 1930s, the LSE received millions of dollars from the Rockefeller and Laura Spelman Foundations, becoming known as “Rockefellers baby”.
The Rockefellers’ Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) operating within the US State Department was responsible for designing America’s post-war foreign policy. A key element of this policy was the $13 billion Marshall Aid that funded Europe’s Socialist governments, including Britain’s own Fabian Socialist Labour government run by Prime Minister Clement Attlee, former chairman of the New Fabian Research Bureau.
Another Rockefeller outfit bankrolling Fabian projects was the International Monetary Fund (IMF), established in 1944 along with the World Bank. Its chief architect was US Under-Secretary of the Treasury Harry Dexter White, a covert Communist, who had close links to the Rockefeller-associated Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR).
The IMF provided several loans to Labour (Fabian) governments :
- $250 million to the Attlee Government in 1947 (Martin, p. 77);
- $1 billion to the Wilson Government in 1969 (Martin, p. 109);
- $4 billion to the second Wilson Government in 1976 (Stone-Lee, 2005).
Another important loan of $4.34 billion was negotiated in 1946 by Fabian economist John Maynard Keynes and facilitated by his friend and collaborator Harry Dexter White who operated within the US Treasury as well as the IMF. All these loans were organised under successive Fabian Chancellors Hugh Dalton, Roy Jenkins and Denis Healey.
The Fabian Society itself continues to be funded by subversive entities like the European Commission and the Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS), an EU-wide operation co-funded by the European Parliament, which works for a Socialist Europe.
The Society also operates in partnership with global companies like Pearson, a long-time Lazard and Rothschild associate. Pearson has been a major stockholder in the banking group Lazard from the early 1900s. Lazard was identified by the historian Carroll Quigley as the principal bank of the Anglo-American Establishment, a left-wing international alliance consisting of the British Milner Group (revolving around Rothschild interests) and America’s Eastern Establishment (revolving around J. P. Morgan and Rockefeller interests).
Like Pearson, Lazard is a left-wing operation with a long history of support for left-wing causes. It has been a supporter of America’s Democratic President Barack Obama and has hired leading Fabian Socialist Peter Mandelson as senior adviser.
The Fabian Society and the Bilderberg Group
It is interesting to note what leading Bilderberg members have had to say about the Group. David Rockefeller writes that “Bilderberg meetings must induce apocalyptic visions of omnipotent international bankers plotting with unscrupulous government officials to impose cunning schemes on an ignorant and unsuspecting world” (Rockefeller, pp. 410-1). Denis Healey writes that “in America they were attacked as a left-wing plot to subvert the United States, in Europe as a capitalist plot to undermine socialism” (Healey, p. 196).
In fact, all of the above statements are correct with the exception of the strange idea – no doubt the product of Socialist misdirection efforts – that the Group’s activities would somehow “undermine Socialism". The truth of the matter is that the Bilderberg Group has been a Socialist operation from inception: by all accounts, Bilderberg was the brainchild of Polish Socialist Joseph Retinger who was a close collaborator of the Fabian Society.
Based in London, Retinger had been in charge of co-ordinating the foreign ministers of various European governments-in-exile during the war. After the war, he was appointed secretary-general of several organisations promoting Socialist projects like the Independent League for European Co-operation (ILEC) and the European League for Economic Co-operation (ELEC). These organisations were bankrolled by David Astor and associated interests and became the driving force behind the movement for a united Europe (Ratiu, 2012).
The involvement of leading figures from the financial world shows that Bilderberg was indeed the creation of financial interests. Only that these interests were not “capitalist” but Socialist. David Astor, who became a member, was a leader of the pro-Socialist Milner Group. Other leading financiers who attended Bilderberg meetings from the first conference (1954) were long-standing Fabian Socialists David and Nelson Rockefeller; Joseph E. Johnson, chairman of the Rockefellers’ Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and president of the Rockefeller-controlled Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; and Dean Rusk, CFR director, director of the Rockefeller Foundation, Bilderberg co-chairman and (from 1961) Democrat Secretary of State. The only capitalist of sorts was the Group’s chairman, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. However, he was controlled by Retinger who, as a former member of the intelligence services, held information about Bernhard’s private life (de Villemarest, p. 15) and had clearly chosen him to cover the Socialist trail.
On the political side, too, the Group was dominated by Socialists like Denis Healey and Hugh Gaitskell of the Fabian Society executive committee. Healey was also member and later chairman of the Fabian International Bureau Advisory Committee as well as Chatham House (RIIA) councillor. Their “Conservative” colleague on the Bilderberg steering committee was Reginald (“Reggie”) Maudling, Churchill’s Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who had been a key supporter of Labour’s nationalisation programme. French members included Guy Mollet, Vice-President of the Fabian-controlled Socialist International, leader of the French Section of the Workers’ International (later Socialist) Party (SFIO) who later became Prime Minister of France, and his assistant Jacques Piette of the SFIO executive committee.
The Fabian Society occupied a dominant position on the international Socialist scene not only through its close links to the Rockefellers and other powerful American allies but also thanks to the fact that it was one of the few Socialist organisations in Europe to have remained untouched by German occupation. This unique position enabled it to launch the Socialist International after the war and was clearly reflected within the Bilderberg Group.
Equally clear is the relationship between leading Fabian Socialists and the financial interests involved. While Retinger was in the pay of David Astor as already noted, Healey and Gaitskell enjoyed favours such as foreign excursions paid for by Rockefeller-controlled organisations (the Astors’ long-standing associates), namely the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the CIA. Rothschild interests have not been absent from the Bilderberg steering committee either. They have been strongly represented by figureheads like Sir Evelyn de Rothschild of N. M. Rothschild & Sons, London, and his cousin Edmond de Rothschild, head of the private banking group Edmond de Rothschild Group with branches in Paris and Geneva.
David Rockefeller claims that the Bilderberg Group discusses important issues “without reaching consensus”. Healey, who found Bilderberg conferences “most valuable,” explains that the real value of such meetings is “in the personal contacts outside the conference hall”. Indeed, these contacts lead to other places where consensus is indisputably reached. It was at Bilderberg meetings that David Rockefeller met the chairman of royal Dutch Petroleum, John Loudon, whom he appointed chairman of the Chase Bank International Advisory Committee (IAC) in the late 1960s. Opportunities for reaching consensus are also provided by annual meetings of the Trilateral Commission, another Rothschild-Rockefeller operation which, to Rockefeller’s express pleasure, is a “vigorous and effective collaborator on the world scene” (Rockefeller, p. 418, emphasis added).
The main function of the Bilderberg Group then would seem to be that of a preliminary forum for Trilateral meetings and related events. Yet this is not to say that Bilderberg conferences are mere talk. They have produced projects favoured by the above international financial interests like the 1957 Treaty of Rome which created the European Economic Community (EEC) a.k.a. “Common Market” (Aldrich, p. 216) and remain an important venue where similar projects leading to world government are discussed without the participation or knowledge of the general public.
The Bilderberg Group’s role in the drive for world government has been confirmed by leading Fabian Healey himself, co-founder of both the Socialist International and Bilderberg, who admitted that the group aimed to achieve a “united global governance” (Birrell, 2013).
In light of the above facts, the identity of the objectives of the Fabian Society represented by the Socialist International and parties like Labour, on one hand, and the objectives of international financial interests represented by the UN and Bilderberg, on the other hand, becomes indisputable (Ratiu, 2012).
(This article is based on Chapter 2, “The Fabian Conspiracy,” of The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy by Ioan Ratiu)
Fabian control over the working classes
The monopolistic elements in liberal capitalism had been able to secure control over resources (oil, gold, steel, etc.) with the collaboration of the ruling upper classes whom they were gradually replacing. However, the emergence of a less malleable new class of industrial workers was threatening to disrupt the established balance of power in industrial societies.
Therefore, leading liberal capitalists – the big industrial, business and banking interests (Rothschild, Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc.) – came to support social reform as a means of appeasing the restive working classes and ultimately bringing them under their control. The Fabian Society was the key organisation set up for this purpose.
The Fabian leadership had long discovered that Britain’s working classes “were not going to rush into Socialism” – as candidly admitted by Fabian Society Secretary Edward R. Pease (Pease, p. 88). Therefore the first task of the Society was to capture the working classes for its own ends.
Following the Fabian slogan, “educate, agitate, organise”, skilful propaganda and agitation manipulated the public into accepting and backing Fabian policies like social reform programmes. In other words, the Fabians literally decided what the public ought to want and then made sure that the public either wanted, or appeared to want, what the Fabians had chosen for it (Pease, p 84).
Having indoctrinated the masses with Fabian ideas, the next phase was organising them and a key step in this direction was the formation of the Independent Labour Party (ILP).
The ILP was founded at a Fabian conference in 1893 through the merging of over seventy local Fabian societies and was headed by Fabian Keir Hardie, who had earlier co-founded the Second International with Friedrich Engels.
Once the new organisation had been formed, the Society spared no effort to increase its influence in branches of the ILP and the Social Democratic Federation all over the country. Tellingly, as in other matters, it modelled itself on the Milner Group’s British South Africa Company (BSAC), comparing the Fabian Society’s control over the British people with that of the BSAC’s control over the South African natives.
For example, in 1897, the Fabian Executive announced that like the “Chartered Company” in Africa, the Fabian Society will capture and control the British natives “for its profit and their own good” (Fabian News, Sept. 1897, quoted by Pugh, p. 58).
The ILP’s aim of controlling the working classes for Fabian purposes is also evident from Beatrice Webb’s Diary and other Fabian documents. By 1913, she was able to observe that the Fabian Society and the Independent Labour Party were well on the way to controlling the policy of Britain’s Labour and Socialist movement (M. Cole, p. 167).
The above demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that Socialism (including Fabianism) has been imposed on the working classes by outside interests. This fact was openly admitted by Lenin who used it to suppress all spontaneity in the working-class
movement and bring it under the control of his own “Social-Democratic” (later Communist) Party (see Lenin,What Is To Be Done? and Walicki, p. 294).
On their part, ordinary Labour supporters – in so far as they were aware of the Fabians’ activities – thought of them as unprincipled spiders, spinning webs to entrap honest Socialists (M. Cole, p. 87). In one of his more lucid moments, Bernard Shaw concurred, referring to himself and the Society as “magnificent parasites” (Holroyd, vol. 3, p. 226).
The Fabian Society and the Labour Party
Another Fabian instrument for entrapping the unsuspecting masses was the Labour Party. Set up in 1900 by Keir Hardie and fellow Socialists, the party was known as the “Labour Representation Committee” for the first few years of its existence.
That it was not representing labour is evident from the middle-class Fabians involved in its formation who included Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb and Edward R. Pease. From inception, Pease, one of the Fabian Society founders, sat on the Labour Party Executive followed by Sidney Webb and others.
The Fabian Society currently describes itself as a “think-tank.” However, as a think-tank operating within the Labour Party the Society is, by definition, a body of experts providing advice and ideas on specific issues which are then implemented as Labour Party policy.
Indeed, from inception, the Fabian Executive described Fabians as the “brainworkers” of the Labour Party (Fabian News, XXIX (5), Apr. 1918 in Pugh, p. 138). In the 1950s, Fabian Society Secretary Margaret Cole described the Society as the “thinking machine of British Socialism” (Pugh, p. 236). The Society continues to define itself as being “at the forefront of developing ideas and public policy on the left” (http://www.fabians.org.uk/about/, last accessed 31 March 2013).
It is bad enough for a major political party like Labour to have its public policy inspired by a semi-secret private organisation with a subversive agenda. However, the Fabian Society does much more than provide the Labour Party with ideas. From inception, the Labour constitution, manifesto and party policy were all personally written by various Fabians like Arthur Henderson and Sidney Webb.
The “Memorandum on War Aims” by Fabian Society co-founder Sidney Webb became the Labour Party’s policy statement.
The pamphlet “Labour and the New Social Order,” also by Webb, was adopted as the Labour Party manifesto.
“The Aims of Labour,” by Webb and fellow Fabian Arthur Henderson became accepted Labour Party policy (Pugh, p. 138), etc.
It follows that the relationship between the Fabian Society and the Labour Party was not a purely intellectual one, but very much physical, given that Fabians literally wrote Labour’s policy statements, manifestos and party programmes.
The on-going physical involvement of the Fabian Society in the running of the Labour Party shows beyond reasonable doubt that the Society has retained complete control over the Labour Party ever since. Particularly disturbing is the striking overlap between the Fabian Society and the Labour Party leadership.
· Fabian percentage in the Labour Party membership. The Fabian Society has 7000 members 80 per cent (5,600) of whom are members of the Labour Party. This amounts to about 3 per cent of the general Labour Party membership (about 190,000 in 2010).
· Fabian percentage in the total number of Labour MPs. The Fabian percentage increases dramatically in the higher reaches of the Labour Party. From inception, Labour candidates standing for parliament included a fair number of Fabian Society members and the Society has retained a large proportion – about 50 percent – among Labour candidates since the 1940s.
In 1945, 393 Labour candidates were elected to Parliament, out of whom 229 were Fabian Society members.
In 1997, 418 Labour candidates were elected, out of whom 200 were Fabian Society members.
· Fabian percentage in Labour governments. By the time we come to the Labour Party leadership, the proportion of Fabians comes close to 100 per cent. The 1966 Labour Cabinet had twenty-one members out of which seventeen were members of the Fabian Society and this proportion has remained constant down to the present. Nearly the entire 1997 Labour Cabinet (including Prime Minister Blair) was composed of Fabians (“The Fabian Society: a brief history,”Guardian, 13 Aug. 2001).
· From inception, leading Fabians like Ramsay MacDonald, Arthur Henderson, James (“Jim”) Middleton, Morgan Phillips and others served as General Secretaries of the Labour Party.
· All Labour governments from 1924 to 1997-2010 have consisted almost exclusively of Fabian Society members;
· All Labour Prime Ministers have been members of the Fabian Society;
· All (or nearly all) leaders of the Labour Party have been members of the Fabian Society;
· All (or nearly all) deputy leaders of the Labour Party have been members of the Fabian Society;
· Future Labour leaders are groomed in the Young Fabians, the Fabian Society’s under-31s section, who, like the Society itself are affiliated to the Labour Party. Unsurprisingly, the Young Fabians have been described as the “Labour MPs of the future”;
· Fabian publications continue to provide the basis for Labour Party policy (Harrop,“Fabian review of the year”; Jenkinson, Remaking the State, etc.);
· Labour leaders continue to profess their allegiance to Fabianism and the Fabian Society :
In April 2006, while unveiling the Fabian Window at the LSE, Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair said that a lot of the values the Fabians stood for would be “very recognizable” in today’s Labour Party(Blair, 2006).
Important Labour Party events are routinely announced, launched or discussed at Fabian Society conferences. For example, Ed Miliband announced his bid for the party leadership at a Fabian Society conference in May 2010; Labour politicians and activists met under the auspices of the Fabian Society to discuss party policy (Lawson, 2012).
In January 2013, at the Fabian Society’s New Year Conference, Labour leader Ed Miliband declared that he is “an avid reader of Fabian pamphlets” (Jenkinson, “EdMiliband’s speech”), etc.
The Fabian Society and its total control over British society
The Fabians’ drive for total control was not restricted to the working classes. The Society’s declared aim was to permeate all classes, from the top to the bottom, with “a common opinion in favour of social control of socially created values” (Barker, 1915).
Needless to say, all such opinions propagated by the Fabian Society were the opinions of the Fabian Society itself, not of the general public, the propagation of Fabian opinions being the Fabians’ express objective :
“The Fabians are associated to spread the following opinions held by them …” (Pease, p. 28, our emphasis).
This, of course, once again shows that the Society was not representing the views, interests, or wishes of the general public but those of its own members and leaders.
For this purpose and in addition to politics, the Society set out to control education, culture, economy, the legal system and even medicine and religion.
That this was deliberate and premeditated is evident from numerous statements by Fabian leaders. For example, Bernard Shaw declared the aim of Fabian educational reform as entailing the creation of a Minister for Education, with “control over the whole educational system, from the elementary school to the University, and over all educational endowments” (Shaw, “Educational Reform,” 1889).
This was accomplished through a wide range of interconnected organisations, societies and movements :
· Education: councils like the London County Council, university societies and schools like the London School of Economics, Imperial College and London University.
· Culture: the New Age movement, the Central School of Arts and Crafts, the Leeds Arts Club, the Fabian Arts Group and the Stage Society.
· Economy: the London School of Economics, the Royal Economic Society, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR).
· Law: the Haldane Society (named after Fabian Society member Lord Haldane).
· Medicine: the Socialist Medical League.
· Religion: the Labour (later Socialist) Church movement, the Christian Socialist Crusade, the Christian Socialist League, the Christian Socialist Movement, etc.
All this, of course, was achieved as gradually and stealthily as possible, as enshrined in the Fabian “Basis,” a document containing the Fabian Society’s general rules, which all members were required to sign and abide by, which stated that Socialism was to be achieved through persuasion and “the general dissemination of knowledge” (M. Cole, pp. 21, 338).
As explained by Sidney Webb, all changes leading to Socialism had to be “gradual, and thus causing no dislocation, however rapid may be the rate of progress” (M. Cole, p. 29).
The Fabian Society and dictatorship
It is essential to understand that from the time of Karl Marx, all branches of Socialism have looked on democracy not as an end in itself but merely as a means of achieving Socialism which is invariably described as an authoritarian, centrally-controlled system.
Indeed, Marxism and derivative systems such as Marxism-Leninism actually regard democracy as antithetical to Socialism which is referred to as “dictatorship,” for example, “dictatorship of the proletariat” – or the dictatorship of the ruling Socialist party supposedly representing the working class over other classes.
Accordingly, Marx and Engels called on their fellow Socialists in Germany to ally themselves with the Liberal Democrats in order to dislodge the Conservatives from power, and then turn against their former allies, including by force of arms, to establish Socialism (“Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League,” March 1850, MESW, vol. 1, pp. 175-85).
Similarly, Lenin in his booklet The State and Revolution (1917), went to extraordinary lengths to dismiss democracy as a temporary and dispensable phase in the transition from Capitalism to Communism :
“Democracy is of great importance for the working class in its struggle for freedom against the capitalists. But democracy … is only one of the stages in the course of development from feudalism to capitalism, and from capitalism to Communism” (Lenin, LCW, vol. 25).
As in Marxism, democracy in Leninism was believed to be a feature of the capitalist state that would become “unnecessary” in Socialist society.
Being less outspoken than Continental Socialists, the Fabians were naturally far more careful in their language. Yet, it is absolutely clear from Fabian statements, both written and spoken, that they followed the general Socialist line according to which democracy was only a means of achieving Socialism.
The Fabians’ very first election manifesto for the Labour Party (written by Shaw and Webb) envisaged a government run by a body of “experts” instead of politicians (Pugh, p. 81). This was echoed by Pease who spoke of “qualified rulers” as a precondition for a Socialist State (Pease, p. 200).
That these “experts” and “qualified rulers” could not have been anything but Fabians is evident from numerous statements by Fabian leaders. For example, Shaw expressed his wish to make the Fabians “the Jesuits of Socialism” (Martin, p. 16), while H G Wells who was number four on the Fabian Executive (after Webb, Pease and Shaw) proposed to turn the whole Society into a ruling order similar to the “Samurai” in his A Modern Utopia.
While, initially, the Fabians kept their views about democracy to themselves, the rise of dictatorial leaders in Soviet Russia and elsewhere eventually prompted them to come into the open and show their true colours.
Already in 1927, Fabian leader Bernard Shaw openly declared that Fabians must get the Socialist movement “out of its old democratic grooves,” that they, as Socialists, had “nothing to do with liberty” and, significantly, that democracy was “incompatible with Socialism” (M. Cole, pp. 196-7).
Embarrassing though this might have been to the general Fabian and Labour membership, it is clear that these were not just Shavian ramblings. Shaw was not shy about expressing his admiration for fascist dictators like Italy’s Benito Mussolini and, in particular, for Communist Russia’s dictators Lenin and Stalin.
Indeed, Shaw’s confession that democracy was “incompatible with Socialism” was identical to Lenin’s own views on the subject expressed in The State and Revolution(1917), The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky (1918) and other writings.
Of particular importance in this connection are Shaw’s numerous public statements showing that he viewed Marxism-Leninism, and later Stalinism, as model manifestations of Fabian Socialism.
To give just a few examples:
According to Shaw, Lenin studied the works of Sydney Webb and “became a gradualist” after which he transformed Russian Socialism into Fabianism.
Shaw declared that “Bolshevism became Fabianism, called Communism.”
Shaw believed that Russian Communism was Fabian Socialism and that the U.S.S.R. was really a “Union of Fabian Republics.”
Shaw described Lenin as the “greatest statesman of Europe.”
Shaw said that “Stalin is a good Fabian” (Ratiu, pp. 85-6; cf. Butler, p. 11).
Shaw’s contention that Lenin became a “gradualist” is, of course, open to debate as Lenin was one of the leaders of the 1917 October Revolution nothing about which was gradualist. But Lenin did study the Webbs’ Industrial Democracy which he translated into
Russian and he did advocate state capitalism as a step towards Socialism, which may be construed as gradualist.
At any rate, from 1920 to 1930, Shaw conducted an advanced Fabian course on Soviet Communism praising its alleged virtues (Holroyd, vol. 3, p. 230). More important, Shaw clearly equated Soviet Communism with Fabianism, declaring after a visit to the Soviet Union “now that I have seen Russia I am more of a Communist than ever” (Shaw, 1 Aug. 1931).
Nor was admiration for Communist Russia and its leaders restricted to Shaw. The Webbs, too, were great admirers of Lenin and Stalin, even keeping a portrait of Lenin at their home and, in 1931, they followed Shaw on a visit to Stalin. On their return, they wrote a massive, two-volume propaganda document for Stalinist Russia entitled Soviet Communism: A New Civilization (1935).
The Webbs’ book was promoted across the country and beyond through Fabian outfits like the influential Left Book Club, and by leading Fabians like Beatrice Webb’s nephew Stafford Cripps, a notorious Stalinist. Yet despite, or because of, their allegiance to Stalinist Russia, Webb was appointed Fabian Society president in 1939, followed by her nephew in 1951.
Other leading Fabians who paid visits to Stalinist Russia included Margaret Cole, who later became honorary secretary and chairman of the Fabian Society, and John Parker. The latter conducted Fabian Society tours and “educational visits” to Russia from 1932 into the 60s, during which period he served as Fabian Society general secretary, chairman and later president (1980-87) (M. Cole, pp. 342-3; Who Is Who & Who Was Who). Parker also wrote his own pro-Soviet book, 42 Days in the Soviet Union (1945).
In an interesting twist to the story, it emerges that the Society’s connections with Lenin and his clique stretched back long before the Revolution. Fabian Society member Joseph Fels, a wealthy soap manufacturer and close friend of Webb and Shaw, had provided a loan of ₤1,700, in addition to pocket money in the sum of one gold sovereign per delegate, to Lenin, Trotsky and their Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (later Communist Party) during their 1907 London conference (Rappaport, pp. 153-4).
On balance, the Fabian leadership’s backing of dictatorship both in theory and practice becomes indisputable.
The Fabian Society and World Government
Outside Britain, the Fabian Society’s ultimate goal has been the establishment of a Socialist World Government. The Society’s concern with international organisation was articulated early on in Fabian documents like International Government (1916) which formed the basis for the creation, three years later, of the League of Nations in collaboration with the Milner Group.
Leading Fabians involved in setting up and running the League included Leonard Woolf,Konni Zilliacus, Philip Noel-Baker, Arthur Salter and the American
Walter Lippmann who was one of the Fabian contacts to US President Woodrow Wilson.
From the 1920s, world government was particularly promoted through the London School of Economics’ International Relations Department (funded by the Cassel Trust) where Noel-Baker ran courses such as the International Politics course on “international organisation for the promotion of common political and economic interest,” which also promoted Fabian books on the subject like International Government.
In 1941, the Fabian Society set up the Fabian International Bureau which was chaired by Noel-Baker, was involved in research and propaganda in international matters, and promoted various internationalist schemes like the union of the British Empire with America and Russia.
Unsurprisingly, the next Fabian project was the United Nations (UN) which was created in 1944 with the involvement of the Fabian Socialist Rockefellers and their Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Designed as a successor to the League, the UN had as permanent members Fabian Socialist Britain, Democratic America, Communist Russia and National Socialist China and, from inception, was dominated by Socialists like Paul-Henri Spaak, Trygve Lie, Dag Hammarskjold and many others (Griffin, 1964), all of whom were closely connected with the London Fabians who had acquired a dominant position in the Socialist world during the war, when Europe’s Socialist leaders had fled to London.
Needless to say, the Fabian Society was a staunch supporter of the UN. In the 1950s it went as far as amending its “Basis,” committing itself to the implementation of the Charter of the United Nations and to the creation of “effective international institutions” (Cole, p. 339).
While agitating for world government through apparently “mainstream” international organisations like the UN and educational institutions like the LSE, the Fabian Society also established an international network of Socialist parties and other organisations operating under the umbrella of the Socialist International, which the Society set up in 1951 for the purpose of co-ordinating international Socialism.
Before long, the Socialist International was able to openly announce :
“The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government. As a first step towards it, they seek to strengthen the United Nations … Membership of the United Nations must be made universal” (“The World Today: The Socialist Perspective,” Declaration of the Socialist International Oslo Conference, 2-4 June 1962).
This stance was parroted by Socialist parties (all members of the Fabian SI) all over the world. For example, Britain’s Labour Party declared :
“Labour remained faithful to its long-term belief in the establishment of east-west co-operation as the basis for a strengthened United Nations developing towards world government … For us world government is the final objective and the United Nations the chosen instrument …” (Labour Party manifesto 1964).
World government has remained the central objective of the Fabian Society ever since and has been vigorously promoted by leading Fabians like Peter Mandelson, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
The Fabian Society and the United States of Europe
Like other Socialist projects, the idea of a United States of Europe originated in liberal capitalist circles, notably those around Richard Cobden, and was adopted by leading Socialists like Engels and Wilhelm Liebknecht, founder of the Social Democratic Workers’ Party of Germany (SDAP) (Liebknecht, 1889).
By 1914, when the Fabian Society was exploring international government, the idea had become part of the official policy of the Fabian-created and -controlled Independent Labour Party (ILP) (“Review of the Week,” Labour Leader, 1 Oct. 1914). During and after World War I, the project was actively promoted by leading Fabians like Arthur Ponsonby, Joseph Retinger, Arthur Salter (a former member of the Fabian Society) and collaborators like Aristide Briand.
Tellingly, the project enjoyed the support of leading financiers like Louis von Rothschild of S. M. von Rothschild & Söhne, Vienna. Moreover, the political drive for a united Europe worked hand in hand with the drive by international financiers to establish a new world financial order involving a network of central banks controlled by themselves.
Thus, in January 1920, Liberal Herbert Asquith and Labourite J R Clynes along with Rothschild agents Paul Warburg, Jacob Schiff and J P Morgan Jr., as well as Bank of England, Lazard and Rockefeller representatives, jointly called for an international economic conference to reorganise the world’s financial and commercial structure (“Powers To Confer On World Finance,” NYT, 15 Jan. 1920); in November 1921, plans for a “Gold Reserve Bank of the United States of Europe” were presented by Frank Vanderlip of the Rockefeller-controlled and Morgan-associated National City Bank of New York (“Vanderlip Gives Details Of Plan For World Bank,” NYT, 13 Nov 1921), etc.
The Fabian Society, Bilderberg and other instruments of undemocratic power
In his Memoirs, David Rockefeller has written that “Bilderberg meetings must induce apocalyptic visions of omnipotent international bankers plotting with unscrupulous government officials to impose cunning schemes on an ignorant and unsuspecting world” (Rockefeller, pp. 410-1).
Bankers like the Rockefellers and their associates may not be omnipotent, but they certainly are very powerful and influential. As to plotting with unscrupulous government officials to impose their cunning schemes on the world, that’s exactly what they are doing. The Bilderberg Group itself is a good example.
According to those involved in its creation, including David Rockefeller himself, the Bilderberg Group was the brainchild of Joseph Retinger, a London-based Polish Socialist and close collaborator of the Fabian Society.
Retinger had been in charge of co-ordinating the foreign ministers of various European governments-in-exile stationed in London during World War II. After the war, he was a leading figure in various semi-secret organisations working for a united Europe, such as the Independent League for European Co-operation (ILEC) and the European League for Economic Co-operation (ELEC).
The unification of Europe was also a key objective of US foreign policy as evident from numerous statements by US leaders like President J F Kennedy in his “Declaration of Interdependence” speech of 1962 (Monnet, p. 467).
It is also evident from statements by British leaders like Labour Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, a Fabian Society member, who pointed out in the House of Commons thatAmerica’s Economic Co-operation Administration (ECA) was very keen on the economic and political unification of Europe.
The ECA was the agency in charge of administering financial aid to Europe as part of theEuropean Recovery Plan a.k.a. “Marshall Plan.” The Plan itself had been instigated by Deputy-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs William Clayton and the ECA was headed by Economic Co-operation Administrator Paul G Hoffman.
Both Clayton and Hoffman were members of the Rockefeller-dominated Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and founders of the US Committee for Economic Development (CED) in 1942 (Smoot, p. 52). It follows that the Marshall Plan and the unification of Europe which was stipulated as a precondition for Marshall Aid, were instigated and engineered by the international bankers who, according to David Rockefeller, do not plot cunning schemes with unscrupulous politicians.
Retinger aside, it was these very same international bankers and politicians who in 1954 set up the Bilderberg Group to co-ordinate American and European business and political interests with a view to creating a united Europe – primarily as a market for US business, but also as a step towards world government.
Among those involved on the US side were: David and Nelson Rockefeller; Joseph E. Johnson, chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and president of the Rockefeller-controlled Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Dean Rusk, CFR director, director of the Rockefeller Foundation, Bilderberg co-chairman and (from 1961) Democrat Secretary of State; and CFR members John Foster Dulles and Allen W Dulles. David Rockefeller himself was a leading figure in the Senior Advisory Group at Bilderberg meetings.
The British side was led by Denis Healey and Hugh Gaitskell of the Fabian Society executive committee. Healey, who had also been involved in setting up the Socialist International, was also member and later chairman of the Fabian International Bureau Advisory Committee as well as Chatham House (RIIA) councillor. His token “Conservative” colleague on the Bilderberg steering committee was Reginald (“Reggie”) Maudling, Churchill’s Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who had been a key supporter of Labour’s nationalisation programme.
In addition to leading Fabians like Healey and Gaitskell, the Fabian Society was also influential through Continental members like the Frenchman Guy Mollet, Vice-President of the Fabian-controlled Socialist International, leader of the French Section of the Workers’ International (later Socialist) Party (SFIO) who later became Prime Minister of France, and his assistant Jacques Piette of the SFIO executive committee.
Other business interests represented on the Bilderberg steering committee from the 1960s were the French, Swiss and British Rothschild families. In fact, Rothschild associates were present from the start in the person of Bilderberg chairman, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, who was a major shareholder in the oil giant Royal Dutch/Shell which was co-owned by the Rothschilds (Callaghan, pp. 205-6; de Villemarest, vol. 2., pp. 14-5 ff.; Healey, pp. 195-6; Rockefeller, pp. 410-12).
Although David Rockefeller claims that the Bilderberg Group discusses important issues “without reaching consensus,” the fact remains that Bilderberg meetings played a pivotal role in the development of internationalist projects like the 1957 Treaty of Rome which created the European Economic Community (EEC) a.k.a. “Common Market” (Aldrich, p. 216).
Of course, important though it may be, Bilderberg is not at the very top of the international power structure working for world domination behind the scenes. That place is reserved for other semi-secret organisations like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller.
Among the Trilateral’s members, we find the same constellation of interests as in the Bilderberg Group. Early members included: Denis Healey of the Fabian Society and Chatham House (Royal Institute of International Affairs); Sir Reay Geddes, director of Shell Transport and Trading (ST&T), the UK branch of Royal Dutch/Shell; Baron Edmond de Rothschild, director of Edmond de Rothschild Banque, Paris; Baron Leon Lambert, cousin of the French Rothschilds, head of Groupe (later Banque) Bruxelles Lambert, and personal friend of David Rockefeller; and, of course, David Rockefeller and associates (Sklar, 1980).
Fabians Society members like R. H. Tawney, John Maynard Keynes, Philip Noel-Baker and Walter Lippmann were also involved in the creation of Chatham House a.k.a. Royal Institute of Foreign Affairs (RIIA) – of which the LSE is an institutional member – and its sister organisation, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). As in the case of Bilderberg, these Fabians were acting as agents and collaborators of financial interests represented by the Astor, Morgan, Rockefeller and Schiff groups (Ratiu, 132-8, 163-4).
The Fabian Society and Keynesian “economics”
The Fabian Society had developed an obsession with economics in the very first months and years of its existence, when its members met regularly to study and discuss Karl Marx and his economic theories. This obsession led to the Fabians’ creation of institutions like the British Economic Association (later Royal Economic Society) and, in particular, the London School of Economics (LSE).
The Fabians’ strange interest was motivated by two things. First, they could use economic theories as a “scientific” backing for their Socialist ideology just as Marx had done before them. Second, through educational institutions teaching Fabian economics, they consciously sought to create whole generations of professional economists – a new ruling class – who, working as civil servants and other government officials, would implement Fabian policies (M. Cole, p. 88).
The first step in this direction was to get economics recognised as a “science.” Needless to say, unlike true science, such as Physics, which is based on universally accepted facts from the natural world, economics had more to do with what economists believed about people’s financial behaviour. This resulted in conflicting theories clearly showing that economics was not a science and economics remains a system plagued by theoretical conflict to this day.
Unfortunately, Sidney Webb’s machinations ensured that the Royal Commission dealing with the matter recognised economics as a science (Webb, p. 195), just in time for the Fabians’ LSE to become a faculty of the University of London as part of the latter’s reorganisation in 1900. This paved the way for the infiltration and domination of society – for many generations to come – by a system hell-bent on imposing Socialism on the world.
The central feature of Fabian “economics” – which Fabianism shares with other Socialist systems – revolved around state control of resources and production: already in their Manifesto of 1884, the Fabians had called for land nationalisation and state control of the industry.
This is an important point which shows that the Fabians’ main concern was the acquisition of power, not the welfare of the general public. Indeed, as later conceded by Fabian leaders, the Fabians had no true practical understanding either of existing society or Socialism and, in particular, no knowledge of the “claims and aims of the working people.”
In his history of the Fabian Society, Shaw candidly describes the Fabians’ lack of sympathy with working-class aspirations (Shaw, 1892; Pease, p. 30). In fact, apart from the obvious objective to grab power, the Fabians had no knowledge of what they were doing or how to go about “reconstructing society” (Pease, p. 27).
Policies related to working hours or wages came to be adopted almost as an afterthought and for the obvious purpose of falsely constructing Fabianism as a movement concerned with working-class interests (Pease, p. 88).
All this exposes Fabianism as a project that was as fraudulent as the Marxism from which its masterminds had lifted their economic theories. To sugar-coat their calls for state control of the economy, the Fabians called for growing involvement of the State in the welfare of individual citizens, eventually leading to the cradle-to-grave social security programme devised by William Beveridge in his 1942 Report.
Much of the Beveridge Report had in fact been anticipated by work carried out by the Fabian Research Bureau and published in 1943 as Social Security under the editorship of William Alexander Robson (M. Cole, p. 298), an LSE alumnus of political science who acted as the Fabians’ “expert” and adviser to local government.
Moreover, Beveridge’sReport was massively promoted by the Fabian Social Security Committee which also launched the Beveridge Social Security League for the purpose.
Beveridge himself was a long-standing collaborator of the Fabian leadership, had served as director of the Fabians’ London School of Economics from 1919 to 1937 and was a friend of the Rockefeller family whom he tapped for funds for the LSE (Rockefeller, p. 81).
Although several leading politicians expressed concerns about the financial implications of the policies proposed in the Beveridge Report, it was adopted and implemented by the Attlee Government, laying the foundations for the modern Welfare (or Nanny) State.
The Beveridge Report, of course, went hand in hand with the theories of John Maynard Keynes who, as long-time General-Secretary and later president of the Royal Economic Society, was the official economist of Fabian Socialism.
Though officially a member of the Liberal Party, Keynes was undoubtedly a Fabian (Pugh, p. 158) who had made his way into the Economic Advisory Council to the 1929 Labour Government and soon became an apostle of public deficit spending (which advised governments to spend money they didn’t have on public projects).
Unsurprisingly, Keynes was one of the architects of the 1944 Breton Woods conference that established the World Bank and the IMF, which effectively became instruments for bankrolling World Socialism. He also headed the British delegation to Washington that negotiated the $4.34 billion US loan to Britain in late 1945 and early 1946.
Like the other false prophet of Socialism, Karl Marx, Keynes was an accomplished charlatan as evident from the fact that he used his influence in the Treasury to manipulate prices and amass a fortune for himself by speculating on the stock market. As for his General Theory, it was based on distorted logic and unsubstantiated assumptions (for an eye-opening exposé of Keynes and his theories see Martin, pp. 323-41).
Unfortunately, the Fabian propaganda machine raised Keynes to the position of economic guru of choice to left-wing governments on both sides of the Atlantic, enabling him to export his fraudulent theories to America where they were eagerly embraced by the advocates of Socialism by the backdoor.
Back in Britain, the Socialist experiment was failing. By 1950, after five years of Fabian government, it was becoming clear that Socialism was incapable of solving practical problems. The state-owned industry was inefficient and unproductive; management was carried on by a new elite of “experts” unconcerned with workers’ interests; state controls were being resented; party conferences raised more problems related to enterprise, taxation and government reform than they solved; popular support was fast draining away and the Fabian leadership was forced to acknowledge a loss of conviction that Socialism was a source of good or would even serve as a means to an end (Pugh, pp. 227-30).
Although the Fabian Labour Party was soundly beaten at the 1951 election, Keynes’ international system of finance together with the Marshall Plan and generous loans from left-wing American administrations literally saved British Socialism from sure death and artificially kept it alive to fight another day. This is how mounting government spending, ever-rising taxes, national debt and state control for the sake of permanent “economic growth” and “social progress” have become the curse of Socialist-dominated nations around the world.
The Fabian Society, immigration and race
The Fabian Society has not always been pro-immigration. In the first years of its existence, for example, it was advising the government to restrict immigration of unskilled foreign workers (Pugh, p. 18).
Later, however, a steadily rising number of immigrants were coming into the country thanks to the British Nationality Act passed by the Fabian Attlee Government in 1948.
In the late 1960s, Labour governments were forced to introduce legislation restricting immigration. While cabinet members – most of whom were Fabians – supported this legislation, some leading Fabians did oppose immigration control, notably former Fabian Society general secretary Shirley Williams, who served as Minister for Home Affairs (Hansen, p. 810).
Eventually, the Fabian leadership clearly took the side of the growing immigrant population. By the early 1980s, the Fabian Labour Party was campaigning for the removal of restrictions on immigration related to age, sex, citizenship and birthplace, that is, virtually all restrictions that had earlier been introduced by the Tory Party (Labour Party manifesto 1983).
As large numbers of immigrants were from non-white areas like the Caribbean, South Asia and Africa, immigration was inevitably linked to race, providing Fabians with the opportunity of using power relations between whites and non-whites for their own agenda.
By the late 1950s, the interests of minorities began to develop into a major concern of the Fabian Society and the Labour Party, as evidenced by a string of publications such as the Labour Party’s “Racial discrimination” (1958), the Young Fabian Society’s “Strangers within” (1965) and the Fabian Society’s “Immigration and race relations” (1970).
Before long, “race discrimination” was replaced by “positive discrimination” in favour of immigrant minorities. For example, in the 1960s and 70s, Fabian-controlled local authorities introduced schemes facilitating the housing of non-white immigrants through loans and the preferential employment of non-whites (Patterson, pp. 212-3; Joppke, p. 231).
Chief among these authorities was the Greater London Council (GLC), the local governing body for Greater London, which had evolved from the earlier London County Council (LCC), a body dominated by Fabians from the 1890s, when Sidney Webb and other Fabians were members of its various committees. Like its predecessor, the GLC (established in 1965) was controlled by Fabians like Tom Ponsonby, who served as alderman and later chairman in the 70s, while also serving as general secretary of the Fabian Society (1964-76) and governor of the LSE.
Fabians were instrumental in setting up a pervading system of race relations legislation complete with the authorities to implement it (Pugh, p. 257). The 1965 Race Relations Act was introduced by Home Secretary Frank Soskice, a Fabian. The Act created the Race Relations Board (RRB) which was set up in the following year by the incoming Home Secretary and former Fabian Society chairman, Roy Jenkins.
In 1967, Home Secretary Roy Jenkins drafted a Race Relations Bill leading to the second Race Relations Act – introduced by his fellow Fabian and successor James Callaghan in the following year – which established the Community Relations Commission (CRC). In 1976, Roy Jenkins, again as Labour Home Secretary, introduced the third Race Relations Act which merged the RRB and the CRC to form the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) with new enforcement powers.
The Commission for Racial Equality along with the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) – also created by Roy Jenkins in 1975 – and a wide range of immigrant-oriented inner-city and other programmes became the key instrument through which the Fabians were able to further enforce their immigrationist policies.
Another leading race relations activist was special adviser to Roy Jenkins, Anthony Lester, honorary treasurer and later chairman (1972-73) of the Fabian Society. Lester was a close collaborator of the above-mentioned race relations organisations, founded the pro-immigrant Runnymede Trust and authored various publications promoting a Fabian agenda like Policies for Racial Equality (1969).
Fabian programmatic papers like A Policy for Equality: Race (ILEA, 1983), show that by the 1980s, under the pretext of “race equality,” Fabian policy aimed to change what it had identified as the “power relations between white and black people” in favour of the non-white immigrant population.
Finally, the Fabian Blair-Brown governments of 1997-2010 introduced a wide range of pro-immigrant policies including the systematic and deliberate facilitation of mass immigration for the purpose of changing British society (Green, 2010).
The Fabian stance on immigration is clear from the statements of leading Fabians like Fabian Society general secretary Andrew Harrop to the effect that concerns about immigration should be caused to subside or broaden and that talking about immigration “helps to moderate opinion” (Harrop, “Home affairs: too hot to handle?”, pp. 97-100), as well as from Fabian publications like The Great Rebalancing: How to fix the broken economy (2013) promoting the view that “immigration is central to our growth strategy”.
Economic “growth” – whether factual or imagined – is not the only motivating factor behind these immigrationist policies. The Labour document initiating the mass immigration programme in the early 2000s, makes it very clear that the policy was intended to“maximise the Government’s economic and social objectives” (Whitehead, 2010). What these “social objectives” are we shall see next.
The Fabian society and multiculturalism
The Fabian leadership already advocated the destruction of British culture in the early years of Fabianism. Lectures with titles like “Civilisation: Its Cause and Cure” (1889) were the order of the day while Bernard Shaw regarded it as “good statesmanship” to blow every cathedral in the world to pieces with dynamite without concern about opposition from art critics (Britain, p. 108).
In the 1950s, leading Fabian Society members like Hugh Gaitskell, C. A. R. Crosland and Roy Jenkins, who were on the payroll of international money interests, began to “modernise” British society after the American model, launching a campaign of systematic promotion of American culture which was done in collaboration with the CIA-funded Congress of Cultural Freedom (CCF) and the closely-related Rockefeller and Ford foundations (Callaghan, p. 201-2).
The American culture promoted by the above interests included strong Afro-American elements such as jazz. These elements were reinforced by African-Caribbean traditions like reggae in the 1960s and 70s (promoted by the same interests) and thanks to the subsequent influx of related Afro-American genres (rap, hip-hop, etc.) became dominant, paving the way for large-scale penetration and gradual replacement of European culture by non-European traditions.
Meanwhile, rising numbers of immigrants, particularly South Asians (Indians and Pakistanis) began to resist assimilation into British society (Patterson, p. 111). Instead of encouraging the immigrant population to assimilate, the left-wing political leadership under Fabian Prime Minister Harold Wilson reacted by imposing multiculturalism disguised as “integration” on the indigenous society (Joppke, p. 233).
In a speech to a meeting of Voluntary Liaison Committees on 23 May 1966, Labour Home Secretary and former Fabian Society chairman, Roy Jenkins, defined integration as “equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity,” adding that this was now a “Home Office responsibility” (Patterson, p. 113). Thus, state-imposed cultural diversity, later dubbed “multiculturalism,” became the established policy of Fabian-Labour governments.
This policy of state-enforced cultural diversity was closely linked with mass immigration. In the late 1990s, Tony Blair’s Fabian Labour regime embarked on a programme of systematic state-promoted mass immigration with the express aim of making British society“more multicultural” (Whitehead, 2009).
Labour’s multiculturalist programme was fully in line with the agenda of Fabian operations like the Runnymede Trust, whose Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain (set up in 1998 to promote “racial justice”) demanded a formal declaration that Britain is a multicultural society and called on political leaders to lead the country in “re-imagining Britain” (CFMEB, 2000, p. 229).
The CFMEB report – edited in early 2000 for publication in October – also coincided with the secret Labour document “Preliminary Report on Migration” produced by the Home Office and Tony Blair’s Cabinet Office think-tank Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU), which referred to the “social objectives” of the government’s immigration policy (PIU/HO, 2000; Green, 2010; Whitehead, 2010).
As we have just seen, these “social objectives” revolved around changing British culture. As pointed out by leading commentators, there was a deliberate agenda to transform the cultural identity of the British people. Melanie Phillips correctly described this agenda as “national cultural sabotage” (Phillips, 2009).
However, the most important and dramatic changes mass immigration brings about in a society are not cultural but demographic, that is ethnic and racial. You cannot import millions of ethnically and racially distinct people into a given territory without changing the ethnic and racial make-up of the host population. It follows that the real and most disturbing agenda of Fabian-Labour policy aimed to change the ethnic and racial make-up of British society.
This is a very important point given that, while the destruction of an entire nation’s cultural identity is morally reprehensible, the forcible transformation of a population’s ethnic and racial composition is an enterprise of a different order, coming very close to the accepted definition of genocide – a very serious crime not only in moral but also in legal terms.
These alarming developments have been pointed out by a number of commentators, from Leo McKinstry who notes that there is a “campaign of aggressive discrimination against England’s indigenous population” ranging from discrimination against individuals to discrimination against whole towns and amounting to “war on the English people” (McKinstry, 2007), to Tony Shell who describes what is happening as “genocidalpopulation change” and “progressive genocide” (Shell, 2011, p. 1; Shell, 2012, p. 2).
As conceded by Fabian Society general secretary Sunder Katwala, multiculturalism in Britain never succeeded in engaging the majority white population (Katwala, 2005). Reports by his think-tank British Future have found that indigenous Britons are far less optimistic about their future than the immigrant (black and Asian) population (Jolley andKatwala, 2012). Typically, Katwala seems to be unable (or unwilling) to understand that no project aiming to replace one population with another can possibly enjoy the support of the population being replaced.
There can be little doubt that, were these policies applied to non-European populations, their architects would be indicted by Fabians as “colonialists,” “imperialists” and “racists.” The Conservatives were absolutely right to demand an independent inquiry into the issue. However, even without an inquiry, Fabianism stands exposed as the double-faced, anti-British project it has always been.
Multiculturalism through state-imposed mass immigration is not, and will never be, a project representing the interests and wishes of Britain’s indigenous population. Whose interests multiculturalism serves is clear from its architects and their connections from inception to the present.
The involvement of political interests like leading members of the Fabian Society and the Labour Party is indisputable. But equally important is the involvement of financial interests. Fabian Society member and former chairman Roy Jenkins joined David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission in the 1970s. The Wilson government itself was funded by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which was run by members of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (Martin, p. 109).
Thus, a clear connection can be established not only between multiculturalism and Fabianism but also between multiculturalism and the international money power. On their part, Fabianism and the money power themselves are united in their shared goal of establishing world government by destroying the nation-state.
This shared goal naturally leads to close co-operation between Fabians and like-minded politicians as well as financial and industrial interests. These interests have a long history of using “philanthropic” foundations to promote their subversive agendas under the cloak of “social and racial justice” or “the public good.”
Charity Commission records show that in 2007 the Fabian Society and the Barrow Cadbury Trust (a pro-immigrant charitable foundation controlled by chocolate manufacturer Cadbury that operates in partnership with the Fabian Society) took part in secret discussions on “progressive migration policy” with various Labour politicians including Immigration Minister Liam Byrne (Shell, 2011, p. 2), a Fabian Society member and co-founder of Progress (see below).
Other major “charities” operating in partnership with the Fabian Society, funding its projects, or otherwise promoting its agenda, are the Webb Memorial Trust and the JosephRowntree foundations.
· The Webb Memorial Trust has been providing grants to the Fabian Society.
· The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) has been working in partnership with the Fabian Society.
· The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust (JRRT) along with Barrow Cadbury Trust (BCT) have provided grants to COMPASS, a Brownite pressure group set up in 2003 and headed by the Fabian Neal Lawson.
· The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust (JRCT) – which describes itself as a “progressive foundation committed to radical change” – has been co-funding the Runnymede Trust’s Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain (CFMEB), etc.
These Fabian and Fabian-associated foundations are also heavily represented in a number of other foundations and associations of foundations, all working for the same Fabian agenda. For example, Barrow Cadbury Trust (BCT) CEO Sara Llewellin also serves as vice-chairman of the Association of Charitable Foundations (ACF), whose nominations committees include Anna Southhall of BCT and Simon Buxton of the Fabian-controlled Noel Buxton Trust (NBT), a foundation named after the Fabian Lord Noel-Buxton.Llewellin is also a member of the Governing Council of the European Foundations Centre.
Similar links may be established between the Fabian Blair-Brown administration and left-wing academic and financial interests.
Jonathan Portes, the head of the PIU Migration Project which produced the “Preliminary Report on Migration” advocating mass immigration for social-engineering purposes, is the son of Professor Richard Portes, a CFR director and leading member of the Fabian-controlled Royal Economics Society (vice-chairman from 2009).
Prior to joining the Blair Administration, Jonathan worked for the US Treasury Department under Treasury Secretary and CFR director Robert Rubin (1996-9) and as special consultant to the IMF under first deputy managing director and LSE economics graduate Stanley Fisher (1998-9).
In February 2011 Portes took on a post as director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), a Keynesian outfit set up with Rockefeller funds by LSE graduate and banker Josiah Stamp. With Nicholas Monk, son of Fabian Society general secretary Bosworth Monk, as president and LSE Professor of Economics and Political Science, Tomothy Besley, as chairman, the NIESR is clearly another Fabian operation with Rockefeller connections.
Likewise, we find that Tony Blair’s assistant political secretary (1997-2000), FarzanaHakim, joined J P Morgan in 2000 when it was bought up by the Rockefellers’ Chase Manhattan Bank. Tony Blair himself, on leaving office, took on a post as adviser to J P Morgan (part of the Rockefellers’ new bank, JPMorgan Chase) and currently chairs its International Advisory Council whose members include: long-time Rockefeller associates Henry Kissinger and Kofi Annan; Khalid Al-Falih, President and CEO of Saudi Aramco (a former Rockefeller-Saudi operation); and Ratan Naval Tata, chairman of Tata Sons Ltd.
As shown above, both the Rockefellers and the Tata Group have close links to the Fabian Society going back to the early 1900s and both groups have made substantial monetary contributions to the Fabian Society’s London School of Economics.
The Fabian Society and Islamisation
The Fabians have always had a soft spot for the exotic and, in particular, for subversive religious and pseudo-religious movements that lent themselves to being used for Fabian purposes. Among these were Freemasonry (leading Fabians like Annie Besant, A. R.Orage and Clement Attlee, were members of Masonic lodges); Theosophy (of whichBesant was also a leading light); and Gurdjeff’s “Fourth Way.”
Fabian interest in, and support of, Islam was motivated by the following factors:
· Empire politics. From the beginning, British support of Islam was closely connected with imperial interests in South Asia, North Africa and the Middle East.
· The “revolutionary” character of Islam. The socialistic, Cobdenite teachings of Islam such as “universal brotherhood” along with its opposition to Christianity, made it a convenient ally in the Fabians’ relentless drive to undermine Western society and civilisation.
In his writings, H. G. Wells praised Islam’s alleged insistence on “the perfect brotherhood and equality before God,” while Shaw wrote that Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was “a great Protestant religious force,” like George Fox or Wesley. Other leading Fabian apologists for Islam were Annie Besant and Bertrand Russell (Ratiu, p. 102).
· The Fabianisation of the Muslim world. Fabianism’s own inroads into the Muslim world, in particular, North Africa and the Middle East, made friendly relations with Islam imperative.
· Oil interests. The Fabians’ aim of controlling the world’s natural resources – which coincided with the aim of the big oil companies – called for friendly relations with Islam.
· The rise of Islam as a world power. The Muslim world’s growing economic and political power resulting from oil revenues, again, made friendly relations with Islam imperative.
· Muslim mass immigration. Mass immigration of Muslims from South Asia and Africa facilitated by Fabian Labour policy created new demographic and electoral realities which Fabian Labour governments – both local and national – fully exploited to their advantage.
As oil was fast becoming a treasured commodity thanks to the efforts of industrial and banking interests like the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers – who controlled the Royal Dutch Shell and Standard Oil (later Exxon) empires – the Fabians and their collaborators among the ruling elites of the British Empire could hardly have avoided taking a pro-Muslim stance.
And so, we find that in 1914 the government of Liberal Prime Minister Herbert Asquith declared:
“One of [the government’s] fundamental traditions is to be a friend of Islam andMuslums and to defend the Islamic Khalifate even if it was a Khalifate of conquest as the Turkish Khalifate …” (FO141/710/9).
Both Asquith and his Foreign Secretary Edward Grey were close to the Fabian Society. Asquith was a close friend of Bernard Shaw and helped the Fabian Ramsay MacDonald become Prime Minister in 1924 and 1929. Grey was a member of the Fabian Society’s Coefficients Club where collaboration between the Fabian Society, the Milner Group and various political parties and business interests was discussed and plotted.
This official pro-Muslim position was confirmed by leading Fabian and Secretary of State for India (Lord) Sydney Olivier, who wrote:
“No one with a close acquaintance with Indian affairs will be prepared to deny that on the whole there is a predominant bias in British officialism in favour of the Moslem community, partly on the ground of closer sympathy but more largely as a make-weight against Hindu nationalism” (Olivier, 1926).
Key persons who were either Fabians or associates of the Fabians to promote Muslim causes included:
The Fabian Society itself continues to be funded by subversive entities like the European Commission and the Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS), an EU-wide operation co-funded by the European Parliament, which works for a Socialist Europe.
The Society also operates in partnership with global companies like Pearson, a long-time Lazard and Rothschild associate. Pearson has been a major stockholder in the banking group Lazard from the early 1900s. Lazard was identified by the historian Carroll Quigley as the principal bank of the Anglo-American Establishment, a left-wing international alliance consisting of the British Milner Group (revolving around Rothschild interests) and America’s Eastern Establishment (revolving around J. P. Morgan and Rockefeller interests).
Like Pearson, Lazard is a left-wing operation with a long history of support for left-wing causes. It has been a supporter of America’s Democratic President Barack Obama and has hired leading Fabian Socialist Peter Mandelson as senior adviser.
The Fabian Society and the Bilderberg Group
It is interesting to note what leading Bilderberg members have had to say about the Group. David Rockefeller writes that “Bilderberg meetings must induce apocalyptic visions of omnipotent international bankers plotting with unscrupulous government officials to impose cunning schemes on an ignorant and unsuspecting world” (Rockefeller, pp. 410-1). Denis Healey writes that “in America they were attacked as a left-wing plot to subvert the United States, in Europe as a capitalist plot to undermine socialism” (Healey, p. 196).
In fact, all of the above statements are correct with the exception of the strange idea – no doubt the product of Socialist misdirection efforts – that the Group’s activities would somehow “undermine Socialism". The truth of the matter is that the Bilderberg Group has been a Socialist operation from inception: by all accounts, Bilderberg was the brainchild of Polish Socialist Joseph Retinger who was a close collaborator of the Fabian Society.
Based in London, Retinger had been in charge of co-ordinating the foreign ministers of various European governments-in-exile during the war. After the war, he was appointed secretary-general of several organisations promoting Socialist projects like the Independent League for European Co-operation (ILEC) and the European League for Economic Co-operation (ELEC). These organisations were bankrolled by David Astor and associated interests and became the driving force behind the movement for a united Europe (Ratiu, 2012).
The involvement of leading figures from the financial world shows that Bilderberg was indeed the creation of financial interests. Only that these interests were not “capitalist” but Socialist. David Astor, who became a member, was a leader of the pro-Socialist Milner Group. Other leading financiers who attended Bilderberg meetings from the first conference (1954) were long-standing Fabian Socialists David and Nelson Rockefeller; Joseph E. Johnson, chairman of the Rockefellers’ Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and president of the Rockefeller-controlled Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; and Dean Rusk, CFR director, director of the Rockefeller Foundation, Bilderberg co-chairman and (from 1961) Democrat Secretary of State. The only capitalist of sorts was the Group’s chairman, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. However, he was controlled by Retinger who, as a former member of the intelligence services, held information about Bernhard’s private life (de Villemarest, p. 15) and had clearly chosen him to cover the Socialist trail.
On the political side, too, the Group was dominated by Socialists like Denis Healey and Hugh Gaitskell of the Fabian Society executive committee. Healey was also member and later chairman of the Fabian International Bureau Advisory Committee as well as Chatham House (RIIA) councillor. Their “Conservative” colleague on the Bilderberg steering committee was Reginald (“Reggie”) Maudling, Churchill’s Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who had been a key supporter of Labour’s nationalisation programme. French members included Guy Mollet, Vice-President of the Fabian-controlled Socialist International, leader of the French Section of the Workers’ International (later Socialist) Party (SFIO) who later became Prime Minister of France, and his assistant Jacques Piette of the SFIO executive committee.
The Fabian Society occupied a dominant position on the international Socialist scene not only through its close links to the Rockefellers and other powerful American allies but also thanks to the fact that it was one of the few Socialist organisations in Europe to have remained untouched by German occupation. This unique position enabled it to launch the Socialist International after the war and was clearly reflected within the Bilderberg Group.
Equally clear is the relationship between leading Fabian Socialists and the financial interests involved. While Retinger was in the pay of David Astor as already noted, Healey and Gaitskell enjoyed favours such as foreign excursions paid for by Rockefeller-controlled organisations (the Astors’ long-standing associates), namely the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the CIA. Rothschild interests have not been absent from the Bilderberg steering committee either. They have been strongly represented by figureheads like Sir Evelyn de Rothschild of N. M. Rothschild & Sons, London, and his cousin Edmond de Rothschild, head of the private banking group Edmond de Rothschild Group with branches in Paris and Geneva.
David Rockefeller claims that the Bilderberg Group discusses important issues “without reaching consensus”. Healey, who found Bilderberg conferences “most valuable,” explains that the real value of such meetings is “in the personal contacts outside the conference hall”. Indeed, these contacts lead to other places where consensus is indisputably reached. It was at Bilderberg meetings that David Rockefeller met the chairman of royal Dutch Petroleum, John Loudon, whom he appointed chairman of the Chase Bank International Advisory Committee (IAC) in the late 1960s. Opportunities for reaching consensus are also provided by annual meetings of the Trilateral Commission, another Rothschild-Rockefeller operation which, to Rockefeller’s express pleasure, is a “vigorous and effective collaborator on the world scene” (Rockefeller, p. 418, emphasis added).
The main function of the Bilderberg Group then would seem to be that of a preliminary forum for Trilateral meetings and related events. Yet this is not to say that Bilderberg conferences are mere talk. They have produced projects favoured by the above international financial interests like the 1957 Treaty of Rome which created the European Economic Community (EEC) a.k.a. “Common Market” (Aldrich, p. 216) and remain an important venue where similar projects leading to world government are discussed without the participation or knowledge of the general public.
The Bilderberg Group’s role in the drive for world government has been confirmed by leading Fabian Healey himself, co-founder of both the Socialist International and Bilderberg, who admitted that the group aimed to achieve a “united global governance” (Birrell, 2013).
In light of the above facts, the identity of the objectives of the Fabian Society represented by the Socialist International and parties like Labour, on one hand, and the objectives of international financial interests represented by the UN and Bilderberg, on the other hand, becomes indisputable (Ratiu, 2012).
(This article is based on Chapter 2, “The Fabian Conspiracy,” of The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy by Ioan Ratiu)
Fabian control over the working classes
The monopolistic elements in liberal capitalism had been able to secure control over resources (oil, gold, steel, etc.) with the collaboration of the ruling upper classes whom they were gradually replacing. However, the emergence of a less malleable new class of industrial workers was threatening to disrupt the established balance of power in industrial societies.
Therefore, leading liberal capitalists – the big industrial, business and banking interests (Rothschild, Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc.) – came to support social reform as a means of appeasing the restive working classes and ultimately bringing them under their control. The Fabian Society was the key organisation set up for this purpose.
The Fabian leadership had long discovered that Britain’s working classes “were not going to rush into Socialism” – as candidly admitted by Fabian Society Secretary Edward R. Pease (Pease, p. 88). Therefore the first task of the Society was to capture the working classes for its own ends.
Following the Fabian slogan, “educate, agitate, organise”, skilful propaganda and agitation manipulated the public into accepting and backing Fabian policies like social reform programmes. In other words, the Fabians literally decided what the public ought to want and then made sure that the public either wanted, or appeared to want, what the Fabians had chosen for it (Pease, p 84).
Having indoctrinated the masses with Fabian ideas, the next phase was organising them and a key step in this direction was the formation of the Independent Labour Party (ILP).
The ILP was founded at a Fabian conference in 1893 through the merging of over seventy local Fabian societies and was headed by Fabian Keir Hardie, who had earlier co-founded the Second International with Friedrich Engels.
Once the new organisation had been formed, the Society spared no effort to increase its influence in branches of the ILP and the Social Democratic Federation all over the country. Tellingly, as in other matters, it modelled itself on the Milner Group’s British South Africa Company (BSAC), comparing the Fabian Society’s control over the British people with that of the BSAC’s control over the South African natives.
For example, in 1897, the Fabian Executive announced that like the “Chartered Company” in Africa, the Fabian Society will capture and control the British natives “for its profit and their own good” (Fabian News, Sept. 1897, quoted by Pugh, p. 58).
The ILP’s aim of controlling the working classes for Fabian purposes is also evident from Beatrice Webb’s Diary and other Fabian documents. By 1913, she was able to observe that the Fabian Society and the Independent Labour Party were well on the way to controlling the policy of Britain’s Labour and Socialist movement (M. Cole, p. 167).
The above demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that Socialism (including Fabianism) has been imposed on the working classes by outside interests. This fact was openly admitted by Lenin who used it to suppress all spontaneity in the working-class
movement and bring it under the control of his own “Social-Democratic” (later Communist) Party (see Lenin,What Is To Be Done? and Walicki, p. 294).
On their part, ordinary Labour supporters – in so far as they were aware of the Fabians’ activities – thought of them as unprincipled spiders, spinning webs to entrap honest Socialists (M. Cole, p. 87). In one of his more lucid moments, Bernard Shaw concurred, referring to himself and the Society as “magnificent parasites” (Holroyd, vol. 3, p. 226).
The Fabian Society and the Labour Party
Another Fabian instrument for entrapping the unsuspecting masses was the Labour Party. Set up in 1900 by Keir Hardie and fellow Socialists, the party was known as the “Labour Representation Committee” for the first few years of its existence.
That it was not representing labour is evident from the middle-class Fabians involved in its formation who included Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb and Edward R. Pease. From inception, Pease, one of the Fabian Society founders, sat on the Labour Party Executive followed by Sidney Webb and others.
The Fabian Society currently describes itself as a “think-tank.” However, as a think-tank operating within the Labour Party the Society is, by definition, a body of experts providing advice and ideas on specific issues which are then implemented as Labour Party policy.
Indeed, from inception, the Fabian Executive described Fabians as the “brainworkers” of the Labour Party (Fabian News, XXIX (5), Apr. 1918 in Pugh, p. 138). In the 1950s, Fabian Society Secretary Margaret Cole described the Society as the “thinking machine of British Socialism” (Pugh, p. 236). The Society continues to define itself as being “at the forefront of developing ideas and public policy on the left” (http://www.fabians.org.uk/about/, last accessed 31 March 2013).
It is bad enough for a major political party like Labour to have its public policy inspired by a semi-secret private organisation with a subversive agenda. However, the Fabian Society does much more than provide the Labour Party with ideas. From inception, the Labour constitution, manifesto and party policy were all personally written by various Fabians like Arthur Henderson and Sidney Webb.
The “Memorandum on War Aims” by Fabian Society co-founder Sidney Webb became the Labour Party’s policy statement.
The pamphlet “Labour and the New Social Order,” also by Webb, was adopted as the Labour Party manifesto.
“The Aims of Labour,” by Webb and fellow Fabian Arthur Henderson became accepted Labour Party policy (Pugh, p. 138), etc.
It follows that the relationship between the Fabian Society and the Labour Party was not a purely intellectual one, but very much physical, given that Fabians literally wrote Labour’s policy statements, manifestos and party programmes.
The on-going physical involvement of the Fabian Society in the running of the Labour Party shows beyond reasonable doubt that the Society has retained complete control over the Labour Party ever since. Particularly disturbing is the striking overlap between the Fabian Society and the Labour Party leadership.
· Fabian percentage in the Labour Party membership. The Fabian Society has 7000 members 80 per cent (5,600) of whom are members of the Labour Party. This amounts to about 3 per cent of the general Labour Party membership (about 190,000 in 2010).
· Fabian percentage in the total number of Labour MPs. The Fabian percentage increases dramatically in the higher reaches of the Labour Party. From inception, Labour candidates standing for parliament included a fair number of Fabian Society members and the Society has retained a large proportion – about 50 percent – among Labour candidates since the 1940s.
In 1945, 393 Labour candidates were elected to Parliament, out of whom 229 were Fabian Society members.
In 1997, 418 Labour candidates were elected, out of whom 200 were Fabian Society members.
· Fabian percentage in Labour governments. By the time we come to the Labour Party leadership, the proportion of Fabians comes close to 100 per cent. The 1966 Labour Cabinet had twenty-one members out of which seventeen were members of the Fabian Society and this proportion has remained constant down to the present. Nearly the entire 1997 Labour Cabinet (including Prime Minister Blair) was composed of Fabians (“The Fabian Society: a brief history,”Guardian, 13 Aug. 2001).
· From inception, leading Fabians like Ramsay MacDonald, Arthur Henderson, James (“Jim”) Middleton, Morgan Phillips and others served as General Secretaries of the Labour Party.
· All Labour governments from 1924 to 1997-2010 have consisted almost exclusively of Fabian Society members;
· All Labour Prime Ministers have been members of the Fabian Society;
· All (or nearly all) leaders of the Labour Party have been members of the Fabian Society;
· All (or nearly all) deputy leaders of the Labour Party have been members of the Fabian Society;
· Future Labour leaders are groomed in the Young Fabians, the Fabian Society’s under-31s section, who, like the Society itself are affiliated to the Labour Party. Unsurprisingly, the Young Fabians have been described as the “Labour MPs of the future”;
· Fabian publications continue to provide the basis for Labour Party policy (Harrop,“Fabian review of the year”; Jenkinson, Remaking the State, etc.);
· Labour leaders continue to profess their allegiance to Fabianism and the Fabian Society :
In April 2006, while unveiling the Fabian Window at the LSE, Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair said that a lot of the values the Fabians stood for would be “very recognizable” in today’s Labour Party(Blair, 2006).
Important Labour Party events are routinely announced, launched or discussed at Fabian Society conferences. For example, Ed Miliband announced his bid for the party leadership at a Fabian Society conference in May 2010; Labour politicians and activists met under the auspices of the Fabian Society to discuss party policy (Lawson, 2012).
In January 2013, at the Fabian Society’s New Year Conference, Labour leader Ed Miliband declared that he is “an avid reader of Fabian pamphlets” (Jenkinson, “EdMiliband’s speech”), etc.
The Fabian Society and its total control over British society
The Fabians’ drive for total control was not restricted to the working classes. The Society’s declared aim was to permeate all classes, from the top to the bottom, with “a common opinion in favour of social control of socially created values” (Barker, 1915).
Needless to say, all such opinions propagated by the Fabian Society were the opinions of the Fabian Society itself, not of the general public, the propagation of Fabian opinions being the Fabians’ express objective :
“The Fabians are associated to spread the following opinions held by them …” (Pease, p. 28, our emphasis).
This, of course, once again shows that the Society was not representing the views, interests, or wishes of the general public but those of its own members and leaders.
For this purpose and in addition to politics, the Society set out to control education, culture, economy, the legal system and even medicine and religion.
That this was deliberate and premeditated is evident from numerous statements by Fabian leaders. For example, Bernard Shaw declared the aim of Fabian educational reform as entailing the creation of a Minister for Education, with “control over the whole educational system, from the elementary school to the University, and over all educational endowments” (Shaw, “Educational Reform,” 1889).
This was accomplished through a wide range of interconnected organisations, societies and movements :
· Education: councils like the London County Council, university societies and schools like the London School of Economics, Imperial College and London University.
· Culture: the New Age movement, the Central School of Arts and Crafts, the Leeds Arts Club, the Fabian Arts Group and the Stage Society.
· Economy: the London School of Economics, the Royal Economic Society, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR).
· Law: the Haldane Society (named after Fabian Society member Lord Haldane).
· Medicine: the Socialist Medical League.
· Religion: the Labour (later Socialist) Church movement, the Christian Socialist Crusade, the Christian Socialist League, the Christian Socialist Movement, etc.
All this, of course, was achieved as gradually and stealthily as possible, as enshrined in the Fabian “Basis,” a document containing the Fabian Society’s general rules, which all members were required to sign and abide by, which stated that Socialism was to be achieved through persuasion and “the general dissemination of knowledge” (M. Cole, pp. 21, 338).
As explained by Sidney Webb, all changes leading to Socialism had to be “gradual, and thus causing no dislocation, however rapid may be the rate of progress” (M. Cole, p. 29).
The Fabian Society and dictatorship
It is essential to understand that from the time of Karl Marx, all branches of Socialism have looked on democracy not as an end in itself but merely as a means of achieving Socialism which is invariably described as an authoritarian, centrally-controlled system.
Indeed, Marxism and derivative systems such as Marxism-Leninism actually regard democracy as antithetical to Socialism which is referred to as “dictatorship,” for example, “dictatorship of the proletariat” – or the dictatorship of the ruling Socialist party supposedly representing the working class over other classes.
Accordingly, Marx and Engels called on their fellow Socialists in Germany to ally themselves with the Liberal Democrats in order to dislodge the Conservatives from power, and then turn against their former allies, including by force of arms, to establish Socialism (“Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League,” March 1850, MESW, vol. 1, pp. 175-85).
Similarly, Lenin in his booklet The State and Revolution (1917), went to extraordinary lengths to dismiss democracy as a temporary and dispensable phase in the transition from Capitalism to Communism :
“Democracy is of great importance for the working class in its struggle for freedom against the capitalists. But democracy … is only one of the stages in the course of development from feudalism to capitalism, and from capitalism to Communism” (Lenin, LCW, vol. 25).
As in Marxism, democracy in Leninism was believed to be a feature of the capitalist state that would become “unnecessary” in Socialist society.
Being less outspoken than Continental Socialists, the Fabians were naturally far more careful in their language. Yet, it is absolutely clear from Fabian statements, both written and spoken, that they followed the general Socialist line according to which democracy was only a means of achieving Socialism.
The Fabians’ very first election manifesto for the Labour Party (written by Shaw and Webb) envisaged a government run by a body of “experts” instead of politicians (Pugh, p. 81). This was echoed by Pease who spoke of “qualified rulers” as a precondition for a Socialist State (Pease, p. 200).
That these “experts” and “qualified rulers” could not have been anything but Fabians is evident from numerous statements by Fabian leaders. For example, Shaw expressed his wish to make the Fabians “the Jesuits of Socialism” (Martin, p. 16), while H G Wells who was number four on the Fabian Executive (after Webb, Pease and Shaw) proposed to turn the whole Society into a ruling order similar to the “Samurai” in his A Modern Utopia.
While, initially, the Fabians kept their views about democracy to themselves, the rise of dictatorial leaders in Soviet Russia and elsewhere eventually prompted them to come into the open and show their true colours.
Already in 1927, Fabian leader Bernard Shaw openly declared that Fabians must get the Socialist movement “out of its old democratic grooves,” that they, as Socialists, had “nothing to do with liberty” and, significantly, that democracy was “incompatible with Socialism” (M. Cole, pp. 196-7).
Embarrassing though this might have been to the general Fabian and Labour membership, it is clear that these were not just Shavian ramblings. Shaw was not shy about expressing his admiration for fascist dictators like Italy’s Benito Mussolini and, in particular, for Communist Russia’s dictators Lenin and Stalin.
Indeed, Shaw’s confession that democracy was “incompatible with Socialism” was identical to Lenin’s own views on the subject expressed in The State and Revolution(1917), The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky (1918) and other writings.
Of particular importance in this connection are Shaw’s numerous public statements showing that he viewed Marxism-Leninism, and later Stalinism, as model manifestations of Fabian Socialism.
To give just a few examples:
According to Shaw, Lenin studied the works of Sydney Webb and “became a gradualist” after which he transformed Russian Socialism into Fabianism.
Shaw declared that “Bolshevism became Fabianism, called Communism.”
Shaw believed that Russian Communism was Fabian Socialism and that the U.S.S.R. was really a “Union of Fabian Republics.”
Shaw described Lenin as the “greatest statesman of Europe.”
Shaw said that “Stalin is a good Fabian” (Ratiu, pp. 85-6; cf. Butler, p. 11).
Shaw’s contention that Lenin became a “gradualist” is, of course, open to debate as Lenin was one of the leaders of the 1917 October Revolution nothing about which was gradualist. But Lenin did study the Webbs’ Industrial Democracy which he translated into
Russian and he did advocate state capitalism as a step towards Socialism, which may be construed as gradualist.
At any rate, from 1920 to 1930, Shaw conducted an advanced Fabian course on Soviet Communism praising its alleged virtues (Holroyd, vol. 3, p. 230). More important, Shaw clearly equated Soviet Communism with Fabianism, declaring after a visit to the Soviet Union “now that I have seen Russia I am more of a Communist than ever” (Shaw, 1 Aug. 1931).
Nor was admiration for Communist Russia and its leaders restricted to Shaw. The Webbs, too, were great admirers of Lenin and Stalin, even keeping a portrait of Lenin at their home and, in 1931, they followed Shaw on a visit to Stalin. On their return, they wrote a massive, two-volume propaganda document for Stalinist Russia entitled Soviet Communism: A New Civilization (1935).
The Webbs’ book was promoted across the country and beyond through Fabian outfits like the influential Left Book Club, and by leading Fabians like Beatrice Webb’s nephew Stafford Cripps, a notorious Stalinist. Yet despite, or because of, their allegiance to Stalinist Russia, Webb was appointed Fabian Society president in 1939, followed by her nephew in 1951.
Other leading Fabians who paid visits to Stalinist Russia included Margaret Cole, who later became honorary secretary and chairman of the Fabian Society, and John Parker. The latter conducted Fabian Society tours and “educational visits” to Russia from 1932 into the 60s, during which period he served as Fabian Society general secretary, chairman and later president (1980-87) (M. Cole, pp. 342-3; Who Is Who & Who Was Who). Parker also wrote his own pro-Soviet book, 42 Days in the Soviet Union (1945).
In an interesting twist to the story, it emerges that the Society’s connections with Lenin and his clique stretched back long before the Revolution. Fabian Society member Joseph Fels, a wealthy soap manufacturer and close friend of Webb and Shaw, had provided a loan of ₤1,700, in addition to pocket money in the sum of one gold sovereign per delegate, to Lenin, Trotsky and their Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (later Communist Party) during their 1907 London conference (Rappaport, pp. 153-4).
On balance, the Fabian leadership’s backing of dictatorship both in theory and practice becomes indisputable.
The Fabian Society and World Government
Outside Britain, the Fabian Society’s ultimate goal has been the establishment of a Socialist World Government. The Society’s concern with international organisation was articulated early on in Fabian documents like International Government (1916) which formed the basis for the creation, three years later, of the League of Nations in collaboration with the Milner Group.
Leading Fabians involved in setting up and running the League included Leonard Woolf,Konni Zilliacus, Philip Noel-Baker, Arthur Salter and the American
Walter Lippmann who was one of the Fabian contacts to US President Woodrow Wilson.
From the 1920s, world government was particularly promoted through the London School of Economics’ International Relations Department (funded by the Cassel Trust) where Noel-Baker ran courses such as the International Politics course on “international organisation for the promotion of common political and economic interest,” which also promoted Fabian books on the subject like International Government.
In 1941, the Fabian Society set up the Fabian International Bureau which was chaired by Noel-Baker, was involved in research and propaganda in international matters, and promoted various internationalist schemes like the union of the British Empire with America and Russia.
Unsurprisingly, the next Fabian project was the United Nations (UN) which was created in 1944 with the involvement of the Fabian Socialist Rockefellers and their Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Designed as a successor to the League, the UN had as permanent members Fabian Socialist Britain, Democratic America, Communist Russia and National Socialist China and, from inception, was dominated by Socialists like Paul-Henri Spaak, Trygve Lie, Dag Hammarskjold and many others (Griffin, 1964), all of whom were closely connected with the London Fabians who had acquired a dominant position in the Socialist world during the war, when Europe’s Socialist leaders had fled to London.
Needless to say, the Fabian Society was a staunch supporter of the UN. In the 1950s it went as far as amending its “Basis,” committing itself to the implementation of the Charter of the United Nations and to the creation of “effective international institutions” (Cole, p. 339).
While agitating for world government through apparently “mainstream” international organisations like the UN and educational institutions like the LSE, the Fabian Society also established an international network of Socialist parties and other organisations operating under the umbrella of the Socialist International, which the Society set up in 1951 for the purpose of co-ordinating international Socialism.
Before long, the Socialist International was able to openly announce :
“The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government. As a first step towards it, they seek to strengthen the United Nations … Membership of the United Nations must be made universal” (“The World Today: The Socialist Perspective,” Declaration of the Socialist International Oslo Conference, 2-4 June 1962).
This stance was parroted by Socialist parties (all members of the Fabian SI) all over the world. For example, Britain’s Labour Party declared :
“Labour remained faithful to its long-term belief in the establishment of east-west co-operation as the basis for a strengthened United Nations developing towards world government … For us world government is the final objective and the United Nations the chosen instrument …” (Labour Party manifesto 1964).
World government has remained the central objective of the Fabian Society ever since and has been vigorously promoted by leading Fabians like Peter Mandelson, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
The Fabian Society and the United States of Europe
Like other Socialist projects, the idea of a United States of Europe originated in liberal capitalist circles, notably those around Richard Cobden, and was adopted by leading Socialists like Engels and Wilhelm Liebknecht, founder of the Social Democratic Workers’ Party of Germany (SDAP) (Liebknecht, 1889).
By 1914, when the Fabian Society was exploring international government, the idea had become part of the official policy of the Fabian-created and -controlled Independent Labour Party (ILP) (“Review of the Week,” Labour Leader, 1 Oct. 1914). During and after World War I, the project was actively promoted by leading Fabians like Arthur Ponsonby, Joseph Retinger, Arthur Salter (a former member of the Fabian Society) and collaborators like Aristide Briand.
Tellingly, the project enjoyed the support of leading financiers like Louis von Rothschild of S. M. von Rothschild & Söhne, Vienna. Moreover, the political drive for a united Europe worked hand in hand with the drive by international financiers to establish a new world financial order involving a network of central banks controlled by themselves.
Thus, in January 1920, Liberal Herbert Asquith and Labourite J R Clynes along with Rothschild agents Paul Warburg, Jacob Schiff and J P Morgan Jr., as well as Bank of England, Lazard and Rockefeller representatives, jointly called for an international economic conference to reorganise the world’s financial and commercial structure (“Powers To Confer On World Finance,” NYT, 15 Jan. 1920); in November 1921, plans for a “Gold Reserve Bank of the United States of Europe” were presented by Frank Vanderlip of the Rockefeller-controlled and Morgan-associated National City Bank of New York (“Vanderlip Gives Details Of Plan For World Bank,” NYT, 13 Nov 1921), etc.
The Fabian Society, Bilderberg and other instruments of undemocratic power
In his Memoirs, David Rockefeller has written that “Bilderberg meetings must induce apocalyptic visions of omnipotent international bankers plotting with unscrupulous government officials to impose cunning schemes on an ignorant and unsuspecting world” (Rockefeller, pp. 410-1).
Bankers like the Rockefellers and their associates may not be omnipotent, but they certainly are very powerful and influential. As to plotting with unscrupulous government officials to impose their cunning schemes on the world, that’s exactly what they are doing. The Bilderberg Group itself is a good example.
According to those involved in its creation, including David Rockefeller himself, the Bilderberg Group was the brainchild of Joseph Retinger, a London-based Polish Socialist and close collaborator of the Fabian Society.
Retinger had been in charge of co-ordinating the foreign ministers of various European governments-in-exile stationed in London during World War II. After the war, he was a leading figure in various semi-secret organisations working for a united Europe, such as the Independent League for European Co-operation (ILEC) and the European League for Economic Co-operation (ELEC).
The unification of Europe was also a key objective of US foreign policy as evident from numerous statements by US leaders like President J F Kennedy in his “Declaration of Interdependence” speech of 1962 (Monnet, p. 467).
It is also evident from statements by British leaders like Labour Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, a Fabian Society member, who pointed out in the House of Commons thatAmerica’s Economic Co-operation Administration (ECA) was very keen on the economic and political unification of Europe.
The ECA was the agency in charge of administering financial aid to Europe as part of theEuropean Recovery Plan a.k.a. “Marshall Plan.” The Plan itself had been instigated by Deputy-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs William Clayton and the ECA was headed by Economic Co-operation Administrator Paul G Hoffman.
Both Clayton and Hoffman were members of the Rockefeller-dominated Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and founders of the US Committee for Economic Development (CED) in 1942 (Smoot, p. 52). It follows that the Marshall Plan and the unification of Europe which was stipulated as a precondition for Marshall Aid, were instigated and engineered by the international bankers who, according to David Rockefeller, do not plot cunning schemes with unscrupulous politicians.
Retinger aside, it was these very same international bankers and politicians who in 1954 set up the Bilderberg Group to co-ordinate American and European business and political interests with a view to creating a united Europe – primarily as a market for US business, but also as a step towards world government.
Among those involved on the US side were: David and Nelson Rockefeller; Joseph E. Johnson, chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and president of the Rockefeller-controlled Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Dean Rusk, CFR director, director of the Rockefeller Foundation, Bilderberg co-chairman and (from 1961) Democrat Secretary of State; and CFR members John Foster Dulles and Allen W Dulles. David Rockefeller himself was a leading figure in the Senior Advisory Group at Bilderberg meetings.
The British side was led by Denis Healey and Hugh Gaitskell of the Fabian Society executive committee. Healey, who had also been involved in setting up the Socialist International, was also member and later chairman of the Fabian International Bureau Advisory Committee as well as Chatham House (RIIA) councillor. His token “Conservative” colleague on the Bilderberg steering committee was Reginald (“Reggie”) Maudling, Churchill’s Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who had been a key supporter of Labour’s nationalisation programme.
In addition to leading Fabians like Healey and Gaitskell, the Fabian Society was also influential through Continental members like the Frenchman Guy Mollet, Vice-President of the Fabian-controlled Socialist International, leader of the French Section of the Workers’ International (later Socialist) Party (SFIO) who later became Prime Minister of France, and his assistant Jacques Piette of the SFIO executive committee.
Other business interests represented on the Bilderberg steering committee from the 1960s were the French, Swiss and British Rothschild families. In fact, Rothschild associates were present from the start in the person of Bilderberg chairman, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, who was a major shareholder in the oil giant Royal Dutch/Shell which was co-owned by the Rothschilds (Callaghan, pp. 205-6; de Villemarest, vol. 2., pp. 14-5 ff.; Healey, pp. 195-6; Rockefeller, pp. 410-12).
Although David Rockefeller claims that the Bilderberg Group discusses important issues “without reaching consensus,” the fact remains that Bilderberg meetings played a pivotal role in the development of internationalist projects like the 1957 Treaty of Rome which created the European Economic Community (EEC) a.k.a. “Common Market” (Aldrich, p. 216).
Of course, important though it may be, Bilderberg is not at the very top of the international power structure working for world domination behind the scenes. That place is reserved for other semi-secret organisations like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller.
Among the Trilateral’s members, we find the same constellation of interests as in the Bilderberg Group. Early members included: Denis Healey of the Fabian Society and Chatham House (Royal Institute of International Affairs); Sir Reay Geddes, director of Shell Transport and Trading (ST&T), the UK branch of Royal Dutch/Shell; Baron Edmond de Rothschild, director of Edmond de Rothschild Banque, Paris; Baron Leon Lambert, cousin of the French Rothschilds, head of Groupe (later Banque) Bruxelles Lambert, and personal friend of David Rockefeller; and, of course, David Rockefeller and associates (Sklar, 1980).
Fabians Society members like R. H. Tawney, John Maynard Keynes, Philip Noel-Baker and Walter Lippmann were also involved in the creation of Chatham House a.k.a. Royal Institute of Foreign Affairs (RIIA) – of which the LSE is an institutional member – and its sister organisation, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). As in the case of Bilderberg, these Fabians were acting as agents and collaborators of financial interests represented by the Astor, Morgan, Rockefeller and Schiff groups (Ratiu, 132-8, 163-4).
The Fabian Society and Keynesian “economics”
The Fabian Society had developed an obsession with economics in the very first months and years of its existence, when its members met regularly to study and discuss Karl Marx and his economic theories. This obsession led to the Fabians’ creation of institutions like the British Economic Association (later Royal Economic Society) and, in particular, the London School of Economics (LSE).
The Fabians’ strange interest was motivated by two things. First, they could use economic theories as a “scientific” backing for their Socialist ideology just as Marx had done before them. Second, through educational institutions teaching Fabian economics, they consciously sought to create whole generations of professional economists – a new ruling class – who, working as civil servants and other government officials, would implement Fabian policies (M. Cole, p. 88).
The first step in this direction was to get economics recognised as a “science.” Needless to say, unlike true science, such as Physics, which is based on universally accepted facts from the natural world, economics had more to do with what economists believed about people’s financial behaviour. This resulted in conflicting theories clearly showing that economics was not a science and economics remains a system plagued by theoretical conflict to this day.
Unfortunately, Sidney Webb’s machinations ensured that the Royal Commission dealing with the matter recognised economics as a science (Webb, p. 195), just in time for the Fabians’ LSE to become a faculty of the University of London as part of the latter’s reorganisation in 1900. This paved the way for the infiltration and domination of society – for many generations to come – by a system hell-bent on imposing Socialism on the world.
The central feature of Fabian “economics” – which Fabianism shares with other Socialist systems – revolved around state control of resources and production: already in their Manifesto of 1884, the Fabians had called for land nationalisation and state control of the industry.
This is an important point which shows that the Fabians’ main concern was the acquisition of power, not the welfare of the general public. Indeed, as later conceded by Fabian leaders, the Fabians had no true practical understanding either of existing society or Socialism and, in particular, no knowledge of the “claims and aims of the working people.”
In his history of the Fabian Society, Shaw candidly describes the Fabians’ lack of sympathy with working-class aspirations (Shaw, 1892; Pease, p. 30). In fact, apart from the obvious objective to grab power, the Fabians had no knowledge of what they were doing or how to go about “reconstructing society” (Pease, p. 27).
Policies related to working hours or wages came to be adopted almost as an afterthought and for the obvious purpose of falsely constructing Fabianism as a movement concerned with working-class interests (Pease, p. 88).
All this exposes Fabianism as a project that was as fraudulent as the Marxism from which its masterminds had lifted their economic theories. To sugar-coat their calls for state control of the economy, the Fabians called for growing involvement of the State in the welfare of individual citizens, eventually leading to the cradle-to-grave social security programme devised by William Beveridge in his 1942 Report.
Much of the Beveridge Report had in fact been anticipated by work carried out by the Fabian Research Bureau and published in 1943 as Social Security under the editorship of William Alexander Robson (M. Cole, p. 298), an LSE alumnus of political science who acted as the Fabians’ “expert” and adviser to local government.
Moreover, Beveridge’sReport was massively promoted by the Fabian Social Security Committee which also launched the Beveridge Social Security League for the purpose.
Beveridge himself was a long-standing collaborator of the Fabian leadership, had served as director of the Fabians’ London School of Economics from 1919 to 1937 and was a friend of the Rockefeller family whom he tapped for funds for the LSE (Rockefeller, p. 81).
Although several leading politicians expressed concerns about the financial implications of the policies proposed in the Beveridge Report, it was adopted and implemented by the Attlee Government, laying the foundations for the modern Welfare (or Nanny) State.
The Beveridge Report, of course, went hand in hand with the theories of John Maynard Keynes who, as long-time General-Secretary and later president of the Royal Economic Society, was the official economist of Fabian Socialism.
Though officially a member of the Liberal Party, Keynes was undoubtedly a Fabian (Pugh, p. 158) who had made his way into the Economic Advisory Council to the 1929 Labour Government and soon became an apostle of public deficit spending (which advised governments to spend money they didn’t have on public projects).
Unsurprisingly, Keynes was one of the architects of the 1944 Breton Woods conference that established the World Bank and the IMF, which effectively became instruments for bankrolling World Socialism. He also headed the British delegation to Washington that negotiated the $4.34 billion US loan to Britain in late 1945 and early 1946.
Like the other false prophet of Socialism, Karl Marx, Keynes was an accomplished charlatan as evident from the fact that he used his influence in the Treasury to manipulate prices and amass a fortune for himself by speculating on the stock market. As for his General Theory, it was based on distorted logic and unsubstantiated assumptions (for an eye-opening exposé of Keynes and his theories see Martin, pp. 323-41).
Unfortunately, the Fabian propaganda machine raised Keynes to the position of economic guru of choice to left-wing governments on both sides of the Atlantic, enabling him to export his fraudulent theories to America where they were eagerly embraced by the advocates of Socialism by the backdoor.
Back in Britain, the Socialist experiment was failing. By 1950, after five years of Fabian government, it was becoming clear that Socialism was incapable of solving practical problems. The state-owned industry was inefficient and unproductive; management was carried on by a new elite of “experts” unconcerned with workers’ interests; state controls were being resented; party conferences raised more problems related to enterprise, taxation and government reform than they solved; popular support was fast draining away and the Fabian leadership was forced to acknowledge a loss of conviction that Socialism was a source of good or would even serve as a means to an end (Pugh, pp. 227-30).
Although the Fabian Labour Party was soundly beaten at the 1951 election, Keynes’ international system of finance together with the Marshall Plan and generous loans from left-wing American administrations literally saved British Socialism from sure death and artificially kept it alive to fight another day. This is how mounting government spending, ever-rising taxes, national debt and state control for the sake of permanent “economic growth” and “social progress” have become the curse of Socialist-dominated nations around the world.
The Fabian Society, immigration and race
The Fabian Society has not always been pro-immigration. In the first years of its existence, for example, it was advising the government to restrict immigration of unskilled foreign workers (Pugh, p. 18).
Later, however, a steadily rising number of immigrants were coming into the country thanks to the British Nationality Act passed by the Fabian Attlee Government in 1948.
In the late 1960s, Labour governments were forced to introduce legislation restricting immigration. While cabinet members – most of whom were Fabians – supported this legislation, some leading Fabians did oppose immigration control, notably former Fabian Society general secretary Shirley Williams, who served as Minister for Home Affairs (Hansen, p. 810).
Eventually, the Fabian leadership clearly took the side of the growing immigrant population. By the early 1980s, the Fabian Labour Party was campaigning for the removal of restrictions on immigration related to age, sex, citizenship and birthplace, that is, virtually all restrictions that had earlier been introduced by the Tory Party (Labour Party manifesto 1983).
As large numbers of immigrants were from non-white areas like the Caribbean, South Asia and Africa, immigration was inevitably linked to race, providing Fabians with the opportunity of using power relations between whites and non-whites for their own agenda.
By the late 1950s, the interests of minorities began to develop into a major concern of the Fabian Society and the Labour Party, as evidenced by a string of publications such as the Labour Party’s “Racial discrimination” (1958), the Young Fabian Society’s “Strangers within” (1965) and the Fabian Society’s “Immigration and race relations” (1970).
Before long, “race discrimination” was replaced by “positive discrimination” in favour of immigrant minorities. For example, in the 1960s and 70s, Fabian-controlled local authorities introduced schemes facilitating the housing of non-white immigrants through loans and the preferential employment of non-whites (Patterson, pp. 212-3; Joppke, p. 231).
Chief among these authorities was the Greater London Council (GLC), the local governing body for Greater London, which had evolved from the earlier London County Council (LCC), a body dominated by Fabians from the 1890s, when Sidney Webb and other Fabians were members of its various committees. Like its predecessor, the GLC (established in 1965) was controlled by Fabians like Tom Ponsonby, who served as alderman and later chairman in the 70s, while also serving as general secretary of the Fabian Society (1964-76) and governor of the LSE.
Fabians were instrumental in setting up a pervading system of race relations legislation complete with the authorities to implement it (Pugh, p. 257). The 1965 Race Relations Act was introduced by Home Secretary Frank Soskice, a Fabian. The Act created the Race Relations Board (RRB) which was set up in the following year by the incoming Home Secretary and former Fabian Society chairman, Roy Jenkins.
In 1967, Home Secretary Roy Jenkins drafted a Race Relations Bill leading to the second Race Relations Act – introduced by his fellow Fabian and successor James Callaghan in the following year – which established the Community Relations Commission (CRC). In 1976, Roy Jenkins, again as Labour Home Secretary, introduced the third Race Relations Act which merged the RRB and the CRC to form the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) with new enforcement powers.
The Commission for Racial Equality along with the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) – also created by Roy Jenkins in 1975 – and a wide range of immigrant-oriented inner-city and other programmes became the key instrument through which the Fabians were able to further enforce their immigrationist policies.
Another leading race relations activist was special adviser to Roy Jenkins, Anthony Lester, honorary treasurer and later chairman (1972-73) of the Fabian Society. Lester was a close collaborator of the above-mentioned race relations organisations, founded the pro-immigrant Runnymede Trust and authored various publications promoting a Fabian agenda like Policies for Racial Equality (1969).
Fabian programmatic papers like A Policy for Equality: Race (ILEA, 1983), show that by the 1980s, under the pretext of “race equality,” Fabian policy aimed to change what it had identified as the “power relations between white and black people” in favour of the non-white immigrant population.
Finally, the Fabian Blair-Brown governments of 1997-2010 introduced a wide range of pro-immigrant policies including the systematic and deliberate facilitation of mass immigration for the purpose of changing British society (Green, 2010).
The Fabian stance on immigration is clear from the statements of leading Fabians like Fabian Society general secretary Andrew Harrop to the effect that concerns about immigration should be caused to subside or broaden and that talking about immigration “helps to moderate opinion” (Harrop, “Home affairs: too hot to handle?”, pp. 97-100), as well as from Fabian publications like The Great Rebalancing: How to fix the broken economy (2013) promoting the view that “immigration is central to our growth strategy”.
Economic “growth” – whether factual or imagined – is not the only motivating factor behind these immigrationist policies. The Labour document initiating the mass immigration programme in the early 2000s, makes it very clear that the policy was intended to“maximise the Government’s economic and social objectives” (Whitehead, 2010). What these “social objectives” are we shall see next.
The Fabian society and multiculturalism
The Fabian leadership already advocated the destruction of British culture in the early years of Fabianism. Lectures with titles like “Civilisation: Its Cause and Cure” (1889) were the order of the day while Bernard Shaw regarded it as “good statesmanship” to blow every cathedral in the world to pieces with dynamite without concern about opposition from art critics (Britain, p. 108).
In the 1950s, leading Fabian Society members like Hugh Gaitskell, C. A. R. Crosland and Roy Jenkins, who were on the payroll of international money interests, began to “modernise” British society after the American model, launching a campaign of systematic promotion of American culture which was done in collaboration with the CIA-funded Congress of Cultural Freedom (CCF) and the closely-related Rockefeller and Ford foundations (Callaghan, p. 201-2).
The American culture promoted by the above interests included strong Afro-American elements such as jazz. These elements were reinforced by African-Caribbean traditions like reggae in the 1960s and 70s (promoted by the same interests) and thanks to the subsequent influx of related Afro-American genres (rap, hip-hop, etc.) became dominant, paving the way for large-scale penetration and gradual replacement of European culture by non-European traditions.
Meanwhile, rising numbers of immigrants, particularly South Asians (Indians and Pakistanis) began to resist assimilation into British society (Patterson, p. 111). Instead of encouraging the immigrant population to assimilate, the left-wing political leadership under Fabian Prime Minister Harold Wilson reacted by imposing multiculturalism disguised as “integration” on the indigenous society (Joppke, p. 233).
In a speech to a meeting of Voluntary Liaison Committees on 23 May 1966, Labour Home Secretary and former Fabian Society chairman, Roy Jenkins, defined integration as “equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity,” adding that this was now a “Home Office responsibility” (Patterson, p. 113). Thus, state-imposed cultural diversity, later dubbed “multiculturalism,” became the established policy of Fabian-Labour governments.
This policy of state-enforced cultural diversity was closely linked with mass immigration. In the late 1990s, Tony Blair’s Fabian Labour regime embarked on a programme of systematic state-promoted mass immigration with the express aim of making British society“more multicultural” (Whitehead, 2009).
Labour’s multiculturalist programme was fully in line with the agenda of Fabian operations like the Runnymede Trust, whose Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain (set up in 1998 to promote “racial justice”) demanded a formal declaration that Britain is a multicultural society and called on political leaders to lead the country in “re-imagining Britain” (CFMEB, 2000, p. 229).
The CFMEB report – edited in early 2000 for publication in October – also coincided with the secret Labour document “Preliminary Report on Migration” produced by the Home Office and Tony Blair’s Cabinet Office think-tank Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU), which referred to the “social objectives” of the government’s immigration policy (PIU/HO, 2000; Green, 2010; Whitehead, 2010).
As we have just seen, these “social objectives” revolved around changing British culture. As pointed out by leading commentators, there was a deliberate agenda to transform the cultural identity of the British people. Melanie Phillips correctly described this agenda as “national cultural sabotage” (Phillips, 2009).
However, the most important and dramatic changes mass immigration brings about in a society are not cultural but demographic, that is ethnic and racial. You cannot import millions of ethnically and racially distinct people into a given territory without changing the ethnic and racial make-up of the host population. It follows that the real and most disturbing agenda of Fabian-Labour policy aimed to change the ethnic and racial make-up of British society.
This is a very important point given that, while the destruction of an entire nation’s cultural identity is morally reprehensible, the forcible transformation of a population’s ethnic and racial composition is an enterprise of a different order, coming very close to the accepted definition of genocide – a very serious crime not only in moral but also in legal terms.
These alarming developments have been pointed out by a number of commentators, from Leo McKinstry who notes that there is a “campaign of aggressive discrimination against England’s indigenous population” ranging from discrimination against individuals to discrimination against whole towns and amounting to “war on the English people” (McKinstry, 2007), to Tony Shell who describes what is happening as “genocidalpopulation change” and “progressive genocide” (Shell, 2011, p. 1; Shell, 2012, p. 2).
As conceded by Fabian Society general secretary Sunder Katwala, multiculturalism in Britain never succeeded in engaging the majority white population (Katwala, 2005). Reports by his think-tank British Future have found that indigenous Britons are far less optimistic about their future than the immigrant (black and Asian) population (Jolley andKatwala, 2012). Typically, Katwala seems to be unable (or unwilling) to understand that no project aiming to replace one population with another can possibly enjoy the support of the population being replaced.
There can be little doubt that, were these policies applied to non-European populations, their architects would be indicted by Fabians as “colonialists,” “imperialists” and “racists.” The Conservatives were absolutely right to demand an independent inquiry into the issue. However, even without an inquiry, Fabianism stands exposed as the double-faced, anti-British project it has always been.
Multiculturalism through state-imposed mass immigration is not, and will never be, a project representing the interests and wishes of Britain’s indigenous population. Whose interests multiculturalism serves is clear from its architects and their connections from inception to the present.
The involvement of political interests like leading members of the Fabian Society and the Labour Party is indisputable. But equally important is the involvement of financial interests. Fabian Society member and former chairman Roy Jenkins joined David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission in the 1970s. The Wilson government itself was funded by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which was run by members of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (Martin, p. 109).
Thus, a clear connection can be established not only between multiculturalism and Fabianism but also between multiculturalism and the international money power. On their part, Fabianism and the money power themselves are united in their shared goal of establishing world government by destroying the nation-state.
This shared goal naturally leads to close co-operation between Fabians and like-minded politicians as well as financial and industrial interests. These interests have a long history of using “philanthropic” foundations to promote their subversive agendas under the cloak of “social and racial justice” or “the public good.”
Charity Commission records show that in 2007 the Fabian Society and the Barrow Cadbury Trust (a pro-immigrant charitable foundation controlled by chocolate manufacturer Cadbury that operates in partnership with the Fabian Society) took part in secret discussions on “progressive migration policy” with various Labour politicians including Immigration Minister Liam Byrne (Shell, 2011, p. 2), a Fabian Society member and co-founder of Progress (see below).
Other major “charities” operating in partnership with the Fabian Society, funding its projects, or otherwise promoting its agenda, are the Webb Memorial Trust and the JosephRowntree foundations.
· The Webb Memorial Trust has been providing grants to the Fabian Society.
· The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) has been working in partnership with the Fabian Society.
· The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust (JRRT) along with Barrow Cadbury Trust (BCT) have provided grants to COMPASS, a Brownite pressure group set up in 2003 and headed by the Fabian Neal Lawson.
· The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust (JRCT) – which describes itself as a “progressive foundation committed to radical change” – has been co-funding the Runnymede Trust’s Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain (CFMEB), etc.
These Fabian and Fabian-associated foundations are also heavily represented in a number of other foundations and associations of foundations, all working for the same Fabian agenda. For example, Barrow Cadbury Trust (BCT) CEO Sara Llewellin also serves as vice-chairman of the Association of Charitable Foundations (ACF), whose nominations committees include Anna Southhall of BCT and Simon Buxton of the Fabian-controlled Noel Buxton Trust (NBT), a foundation named after the Fabian Lord Noel-Buxton.Llewellin is also a member of the Governing Council of the European Foundations Centre.
Similar links may be established between the Fabian Blair-Brown administration and left-wing academic and financial interests.
Jonathan Portes, the head of the PIU Migration Project which produced the “Preliminary Report on Migration” advocating mass immigration for social-engineering purposes, is the son of Professor Richard Portes, a CFR director and leading member of the Fabian-controlled Royal Economics Society (vice-chairman from 2009).
Prior to joining the Blair Administration, Jonathan worked for the US Treasury Department under Treasury Secretary and CFR director Robert Rubin (1996-9) and as special consultant to the IMF under first deputy managing director and LSE economics graduate Stanley Fisher (1998-9).
In February 2011 Portes took on a post as director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), a Keynesian outfit set up with Rockefeller funds by LSE graduate and banker Josiah Stamp. With Nicholas Monk, son of Fabian Society general secretary Bosworth Monk, as president and LSE Professor of Economics and Political Science, Tomothy Besley, as chairman, the NIESR is clearly another Fabian operation with Rockefeller connections.
Likewise, we find that Tony Blair’s assistant political secretary (1997-2000), FarzanaHakim, joined J P Morgan in 2000 when it was bought up by the Rockefellers’ Chase Manhattan Bank. Tony Blair himself, on leaving office, took on a post as adviser to J P Morgan (part of the Rockefellers’ new bank, JPMorgan Chase) and currently chairs its International Advisory Council whose members include: long-time Rockefeller associates Henry Kissinger and Kofi Annan; Khalid Al-Falih, President and CEO of Saudi Aramco (a former Rockefeller-Saudi operation); and Ratan Naval Tata, chairman of Tata Sons Ltd.
As shown above, both the Rockefellers and the Tata Group have close links to the Fabian Society going back to the early 1900s and both groups have made substantial monetary contributions to the Fabian Society’s London School of Economics.
The Fabian Society and Islamisation
The Fabians have always had a soft spot for the exotic and, in particular, for subversive religious and pseudo-religious movements that lent themselves to being used for Fabian purposes. Among these were Freemasonry (leading Fabians like Annie Besant, A. R.Orage and Clement Attlee, were members of Masonic lodges); Theosophy (of whichBesant was also a leading light); and Gurdjeff’s “Fourth Way.”
Fabian interest in, and support of, Islam was motivated by the following factors:
· Empire politics. From the beginning, British support of Islam was closely connected with imperial interests in South Asia, North Africa and the Middle East.
· The “revolutionary” character of Islam. The socialistic, Cobdenite teachings of Islam such as “universal brotherhood” along with its opposition to Christianity, made it a convenient ally in the Fabians’ relentless drive to undermine Western society and civilisation.
In his writings, H. G. Wells praised Islam’s alleged insistence on “the perfect brotherhood and equality before God,” while Shaw wrote that Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was “a great Protestant religious force,” like George Fox or Wesley. Other leading Fabian apologists for Islam were Annie Besant and Bertrand Russell (Ratiu, p. 102).
· The Fabianisation of the Muslim world. Fabianism’s own inroads into the Muslim world, in particular, North Africa and the Middle East, made friendly relations with Islam imperative.
· Oil interests. The Fabians’ aim of controlling the world’s natural resources – which coincided with the aim of the big oil companies – called for friendly relations with Islam.
· The rise of Islam as a world power. The Muslim world’s growing economic and political power resulting from oil revenues, again, made friendly relations with Islam imperative.
· Muslim mass immigration. Mass immigration of Muslims from South Asia and Africa facilitated by Fabian Labour policy created new demographic and electoral realities which Fabian Labour governments – both local and national – fully exploited to their advantage.
As oil was fast becoming a treasured commodity thanks to the efforts of industrial and banking interests like the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers – who controlled the Royal Dutch Shell and Standard Oil (later Exxon) empires – the Fabians and their collaborators among the ruling elites of the British Empire could hardly have avoided taking a pro-Muslim stance.
And so, we find that in 1914 the government of Liberal Prime Minister Herbert Asquith declared:
“One of [the government’s] fundamental traditions is to be a friend of Islam andMuslums and to defend the Islamic Khalifate even if it was a Khalifate of conquest as the Turkish Khalifate …” (FO141/710/9).
Both Asquith and his Foreign Secretary Edward Grey were close to the Fabian Society. Asquith was a close friend of Bernard Shaw and helped the Fabian Ramsay MacDonald become Prime Minister in 1924 and 1929. Grey was a member of the Fabian Society’s Coefficients Club where collaboration between the Fabian Society, the Milner Group and various political parties and business interests was discussed and plotted.
This official pro-Muslim position was confirmed by leading Fabian and Secretary of State for India (Lord) Sydney Olivier, who wrote:
“No one with a close acquaintance with Indian affairs will be prepared to deny that on the whole there is a predominant bias in British officialism in favour of the Moslem community, partly on the ground of closer sympathy but more largely as a make-weight against Hindu nationalism” (Olivier, 1926).
Key persons who were either Fabians or associates of the Fabians to promote Muslim causes included:
- Herbert (later Lord) Samuel, an intimate friend of the Webbs. In 1921, while serving as High Commissioner for Palestine, he appointed Mohammad Amin al-Husseini Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Al-Husseini later played an important role in the Muslim Brotherhood, the Caliphate Movement and the Arab League.
- Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Fabian Society member. In collaboration with Fabian International Bureau chairman and Commonwealth Secretary Philip Noel-Baker and Fabian Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, Jinnah promoted the creation of Pakistan as an independent Muslim state as well as the annexation of Kashmir to Pakistan following Partition.
- Mahatma Gandhi, Fabian Society member. In 1920, Gandhi supported India’s Caliphate (Khilafat) Movement which aimed to restore the Muslim Empire and became a member of the Central Khilafat Committee.
- Lord Rothschild, president of the LSE. Involved in setting up the London Mosque Fund in 1910, remaining a trustee until his death in 1915. The project enjoyed the support of the former principal of the Muhammadan College of Aligarh and LSE lecturer Sir Theodore Morison, and over time developed into the East London Mosque and Islamic Culture Centre (est. 1941), the UK Islamic Mission (est. 1962) and the London Muslim Centre (LCM), established in 2004. According to its website, the ELM-LCM site in Whitechapel (Tower Hamlets, East London) is set to become the largest Islamic complex in Western Europe.
Fabian penetration and the Islamic backlash
From the early 1890s onwards, the Fabians were busy travelling around the world, setting up Fabian groups or quietly spreading their teachings in nearly every country on earth (M. Cole, pp. 347-8). The Islamic Middle East and North Africa were no exception. In 1922, Turkey became a secular, Westernised republic.
By the 1950s, 60s and 70s, Socialism with an Arab twist was spreading to the rest of the Islamic world: Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Algeria, Libya and even Saudi Arabia where Prince TalalIbn Saud, the ruling king’s brother, declared himself to be “a Fabian Socialist” (Fabian News, Nov. 1962).
As shown above, however, there was a parallel counter-movement unfolding at the same time, often with Western (including Fabian) assistance. The Fabians’ systematic promotion of anti-colonialism certainly accounts for much of the anti-Western sentiment that was to develop particularly in the Muslim world.
Thus, while various Arab organisations began to spring up – the Arab League (1945), the Council of Arab Economic Unity (1957), the Arab Common Market (1964) – apparently emulating similar Western organisations, other bodies with a distinctly Islamic agenda came on the scene.
One of these was the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, an organisation set up in 1972 to preserve Islamic social and economic values and to promote solidarity among its members, and whose institutions were to be an Islamic Development Bank, an Islamic Educational, scientific and Cultural Organisation and an International Islamic News Agency.
Apart from Fabian-inspired anti-colonialism, the reason for this new Muslim assertiveness was the West’s growing dependence on Arab oil. At the 1955 annual conference, the Fabian-controlled Labour executive noted that the Middle East was the main issue in the world because that was where most of the world’s oil reserves lay (Callaghan, p. 231).
Britain’s oil supplies were, for the time being, reasonably safe. In 1953, Prime Minister Winston Churchill and US President Eisenhower had ordered a coup d’état in Iran – carried out through MI6 and the CIA – to install a puppet regime and put that country’s oil resources under the control of the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later BP) (M. Curtis, 2003, pp. 303-4). The remainder of Britain’s oil imports (about half) was supplied by Kuwait.
A turning point in Western-Muslim relations came in 1973, when oil-producing Arab countries (OPEC) imposed an oil embargo on America and several Western European countries who had supported Israel in the Arab-Israeli Yom Kippur War. At the same time, there was a five-fold increase in oil prices, creating huge deficits in oil-consuming economies.
While leading industrial countries like America, West Germany and Japan sensibly reduced their deficits by deflating their economies, the Labour government under Fabian Chancellor Healey decided to finance Britain’s own deficit by borrowing from merchant banks as well as from Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Healey also proposed an international mechanism through which the IMF would borrow surplus petrodollars from the OPEC to loan to oil-consuming countries struggling to finance their deficits. When this was rejected by America, he organised a smaller-scale facility for Western European countries (Healey, pp. 423-6), named “Second Witteveen Oil Facility” after IMF managing director Johannes Witteveen, the former Finance Minister of the Netherlands who aimed to transform the IMF into a centralised global bank. Thus, with one stroke, Europe was demoted from colonial power to a dependency of the Arab world.
The Euro-Arab Dialogue and the Fabian New World Order
While the above manoeuvres rendered Britain and other European countries indebted to the Muslim-dominated OPEC and the IMF, another diabolical plan was hatched to tie Europe even closer to the Islamic world.
In 1973, French Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs Jean-Noel de Lipkowski initiated discussions for a Euro-Arab dialogue with the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi (Ye’or, p. 52). In November, French President Georges Pompidou himself and West-German Chancellor Willy Brandt met to reaffirm the intention to engage in a “dialogue with the Arabs.” At the instigation of Pompidou, a European Summit was convened on 14-15 December at Copenhagen to launch the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD).
A closer look at the protagonists of the Euro-Arab Project reveals the interests behind it. It is a well-known fact that the whole Pompidou Administration, from Under-SecretaryLipkowski to Foreign Minister Jobert to Pompidou, was pro-Arab and the President himself was known for his “Mediterranean vision.” But the Pompidou Administration was also close to Rothschild interests. Pompidou himself had served as general director of the Rothschild Freres, Paris, and as manager of the French Rothschilds’ business empire until 1962, when he became Prime Minister under de Gaulle.
The “development of Africa” had always been a Rothschild plank, being inserted into the 1950 Schuman Declaration – which established the European Coal and Steel Community (later EEC) – at the insistence of Rothschild cousin and former manager of the Rothschild business empire, Rene Mayer (Monet, p. 300). Of particular interest to the Rothschilds (and to the Rothschild-associated Pompidou Administration) was North Africa, especially oil-producing Arab countries like Algeria and Libya with whom both the Rothschilds and the French government were linked through oil interests: the French government’s CFP and the Rothschilds’ FRANCAREP were operating in the region alongside Shell (another Rothschild-controlled operation), the Rockefellers’ Exxon and other leading European and American companies.
The Fabians’ nationalisation programme imposed on Britain under the Attlee regime after the war had inspired oil-producing countries like Iran, where the Socialist MohammadMossadegh nationalised the oil industry in the early 1950s, followed by other Muslim countries in the 60s and 70s. Algeria and Libya began nationalising French and other Western oil interests in 1971. Libya, in particular, was a leader of the Arab conspiracy against the West and, like its next-door neighbour Algeria, was run by a Socialist regime – headed by Colonel Gaddafi, whose close links to the LSE and other Fabian organisations are described in Socialism Exposed.
Another Socialist involved in the Euro-Arab conspiracy was German Chancellor Willy Brand, who had started his political career as co-founder and leader of the International Bureau of Revolutionary Youth Organisations, the youth wing of the International Revolutionary Marxist Centre, a.k.a. London Bureau. The Bureau was controlled by Fenner Brockway of the Independent Labour Party, who was also leader of the League Against Imperialism and a prominent Fabian Society member (Martin, p. 474).
In 1970, Brandt introduced the “Ostpolitik” (East Politics) approach of collaboration with the Moscow-led Eastern Bloc at the instigation of US National Security Adviser and Rockefeller lieutenant Henry Kissinger, which made him the hero of the Labour Party. Brandt was also a long-time friend and colleague of Healey and, as leader of Germany’s Social Democratic Party, a leading figure in the Socialist International which Healey had set up in the 1950s and of which Brandt was appointed president in 1976.
In the following year, US presidential adviser, World Bank President, CFR director and Rockefeller associate Robert McNamara appointed Brandt Chair of the UN Independent Commission on International Development Issues (Brandt Commission). The Commission produced the pro-Third World Brand Report which advocated a “North-South Dialogue” involving the transfer of resources from the North (the developed countries of the Northern hemisphere or First World) to the South (the undeveloped Southern hemisphere or Third World) (Quilligan, 2002). Brandt’s proposals, particularly the creation of a global body to manage economic interdependence (Quilligan, p. 34) were clearly along the lines of Healey’s IMF oil facility and similar Fabian projects.
Kissinger and McNamara had also been Healey’s friends since the 1950s and 60s, respectively (Healey, pp. 316, 307) and so had “Conservative” Prime Minister Edward Heath, a friend of Healey from Balliol, who was instrumental in engineering Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community or Common Market – with the assistance of Pompidou and Willy Brandt. Interestingly, IMF managing director Witteveen, who also became a friend of Healey, was a follower of what Healey calls “the Persian religion of Sufism”. In fact, Sufism is a form of Islam.
Another key element in the equation was British Rothschild interests. Like their French counterparts, British governments had traditionally close links to the Rothschilds. When the chairman of the Fabian International Bureau, Philip Noel-Baker, became Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in 1945, he surrounded himself with members of Lord Victor Rothschild’s circle (Healey, p. 107).
On his part, Rothschild surrounded himself with Fabians and Communists like JohnStrachey, Anthony Blunt (the Soviet spy), Guy Burgess (another Soviet spy) and Beatrice Webb’s grand niece, Teresa (“Red Tess”) Mayor, all of whom shared Rothschild’s house in Bentinck Street. Rothschild became a Labour peer later that year, and in the following year married Mayor who had been his “personal assistant” in MI5 during the war and was now Noel-Baker’s private secretary (Rose, p. 113).
Noel-Baker himself became chairman of the Labour Party in 1946 and later Commonwealth Secretary and Minister for Fuel and Power. Rothschild became head of research at Royal Dutch Shell from 1961 to 1970 and then served as founding director of the Central Policy Review Staff (CPRS), the cabinet think-tank advising the government, from 1971 to 1974, before becoming chairman of N. M. Rothschild and Rothschild Continuation (the Zurich-based holding company of the Rothschild banking group).
Needless to say, the Rothschilds (on both sides of the Channel) were in favour of Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community and were involved in various EEC projects like the European Composite Unit (EURCO), a forerunner of the euro (Ferguson, 2000, vol. 2, p. 486). Moreover, both the Fabians and their financier associates had been at the forefront of the drive for a united Europe from the early 1900s (see above).
What becomes apparent is that there was a striking coincidence of a number of events representing key elements in the New Economic World Order that the Fabians and their financial and industrial collaborators and backers had been planning and promoting for decades, among which were the following:
- Nationalisation of oil in Socialist Arab countries, notably North African ones like Libya (who supplied 25 per cent of Western Europe’s oil), 1971-3.
- Enlargement of the European Economic Community, 1973.
- Britain’s entry into the EEC, 1973.
- Launch of the Rothschilds’ European Composite Unit, 1973.
- Founding of the Rockefellers’ Trilateral Commission, 1973, of which leading Fabian Roy Jenkins was a founding member, later joined by Healey and his friend Heath.
- Pompidou and Brandt’s Euro-Arab Dialogue, 1973.
- The United Nations’ New International Economic Order (NIEC), 1974.
- Healey’s OPEC-IMF loan facility, 1974-75.
- The United Nations’ Brandt Commission advocating a North-South Dialogue and redistribution of resources from the First World to the Third World, 1977-80.
It follows that the Euro-Arab Dialogue was in fact a regional scheme within the global New International Economic Order (Corbineau, p. 561), which was being forged by a small clique of left-wing, internationalist politicians – many of them Fabian or Fabian-influenced – with close links to powerful financial interests like the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers.
The Barcelona Process and the Union for the Mediterranean : from “Dialogue” to “Union”
The construction of Europe-Arabia (Eurabia) came to a temporary halt in 1979 at the request of the EEC’s partner, the Arab League, following the Camp David Agreements between Egypt and Israel, which resulted in the expulsion of Egypt from the League, splitting the Arab camp. Further attempts to re-launch the dialogue after Egypt’s readmission in 1989 ended in 1990.
However, the EAD had become the foundation stone for the Islamisation of Europe and once the process had been set in motion, it was carried on by new initiatives, officially by Spain and France, but covertly by the same elements with links to the Fabian Society and associated political and financial interests.
A key figure in Europe’s Islamisation process has been Javier Solana, a nephew of Spanish historian Salvador de Madariaga who was an official of the Milner-Fabian League of Nations and speaker under Fabian auspices (Martin, p. 459). Solana graduated from the Socialist hotbed Complutense University of Madrid and from 1965 to 1971 studied at various Fabian-dominated universities in the USA on a Fulbright scholarship.
The Fulbright programme was a left-wing project operated by the US State Department’s Rockefeller-dominated Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA), a cultural internationalist outfit whose first head was Assistant State Secretary for Education and Culture, Philip H Coombs (the director for education at the Rockefeller-controlled Ford Foundation) who founded the International Institute for Educational Planning and served as adviser to the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), the cultural agency of the UN working for “international collaboration” through education, science and culture, whose first director-general was the British Fabian Julian Huxley.
On his return to Spain, Solana joined Felipe Gonzales’ Socialist government as Culture and later Education Minister in the 1980s, followed by a post as Foreign Minister from 1992. In that capacity, and while Spain held the European Union presidency, Solana in 1995 convened the First Euro-Mediterranean Conference of EU Foreign Ministers at which it was resolved to achieve cultural and economic unity with the Muslim countries of North Africa and the Middle East, for which purpose the conference established the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EMP) a.k.a. Barcelona or Euro-Mediterranean Process.
The worldwide proliferation of Fabian-inspired think-thanks started in the 1970s, ensured the steady spread of Fabian thinking throughout Europe, including Spain, where the Barcelona Centre for International Relations (CIDOB) was founded in 1973. As one of Spain’s most influential think-tanks, CIDOB pioneered Arab World Studies in Catalonia and is one of the institutions training researchers working in the field who are at the forefront of Europe’s Islamisation movement.
In 2000, the Catalan Socialist Narcis Serra, a former LSE research fellow and later Spanish Defence Minister and Vice-President of the Government, was appointed president of CIDOB. Serra was later joined by Jordi Vaquer i Fanes as director of the foundation.Vaquer holds a PhD in International Relations from the LSE where he wrote a thesis entitled Spanish Policy towards Morocco (1986-2002): The Impact of EC/EU Membership.
In 2004, CIDOB president Serra, whose main interests are global governance and foreign policy, set up the Barcelona Institute for International Studies (IBEI) which employs leading pro-Islamic figures such as LSE graduate Fred Halliday, author of Islam and the Myth of Confrontation, (2003), for purposes of subversion and propaganda.
CIDOB collaborates with other pro-Islamic organisations like the Royal Elcano Institute (established in 2001 after the model of Chatham House/RIIA), Asia House (est. 2001), European Institute of the Mediterranean (IEMed, est. 2002), Arab House and International Institute of Arab and Islamic World Studies (CA-IEAM, est. 2006), Mediterranean House (est. 2009), etc., and enjoys among others the support of the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (responsible for the creation of all of the above), the EU, Spanish Agency of International Cooperation, Spanish Ministry of Defence, Catalan Government, Barcelona City Council and a wide network of related authorities, organisations and institutions in Spain and other Mediterranean countries (especially Italy and France) involved in theIslamisation process.
CIDOB is also responsible for a number of prominent publications promoting Islamisationunder the guise of “understanding,” “dialogue,” etc., such as the annual Mediterranean Yearbook, Bibliographical Bulletin of the Arab World and CIDOB Magazine of Foreign Affairs.
In particular, CIDOB and similar Continental organisations set up or infiltrated by the LSE and other Fabian-controlled outfits, are partners of the Anna Lindh Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue between Cultures (ALF), set up in May 2004 at the Mid-Term Meeting of Euro-Mediterranean Foreign Ministers in Dublin with the object of promoting cultural and religious links between Europe and the Islamic Arab world. With a budget of €5 million, ALF has been able to set up branches in 43 countries operating at the centre of a network of over 2000 like-minded organisations. A number of LSE teachers and graduates around the world have received the Anna Lindh award for the study of European foreign policy on pro-Islamisation lines.
While thousands of think-tanks and other organisations have been quietly preparing the ground for the scientific “justification” and psychological acceptance of Islamisation, its latest political implementation is exemplified by the Mediterranean Union (a.k.a. Union for the Mediterranean) which expressly aims to achieve the political, economic and cultural union of the EU with Islamic North Africa and the Middle East.
The project was launched by French President Nicolas Sarkozy during his 2007 presidential campaign and was officially announcedat the Summit for the Mediterranean, Paris, on 13 July 2008, which was attended by 43 heads of state and government as well as by Amr Moussa of the Arab League; Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC); Jorge Sampaio of Alliance of Civilisations (AoC); and AndréAzoulay of Anna Lindh Foundation (ALF).
Sarkozy’s special adviser – who later became head of the Inter-ministerial Mission of the Union for the Mediterranean – was Henri Guaino, professor at the Paris Institute of Political Studies (IEP Paris), where Sarkozy was a student in 1979-81. The Paris Institute is anorganisation run by the National Foundation of Political Science (FNSP), an outfit funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, and operates in partnership with other Rockefeller-associated outfits like the London School of Economics and the School of International and Public Affairs of Columbia University (of which Barack Obama is a graduate).
The Mediterranean Union (UM/UfM) project has enjoyed the full backing of the usual left-wing financial and academic interests. Already in September 2007, the Rockefeller-controlled Harvard Management Company (HMC), a subsidiary of Harvard which invests the university’s $32 billion endowment, launched its Middle East North Africa (MENA) Opportunities Fund in collaboration with the Egyptian private investment bank EFG Hermes, a founding member of the financial facility that bankrolls the UM project, theInfraMed Infrastructure Fund (Saleh, 2009).
EFG Hermes’ co-CEO was Yasser El-Mallawany, former manager of the Rockefellers’ Chase National Bank of Egypt, while the advisory committee of the MENA Opportunities Fund itself included Harvard Management Co. CEO Mohamed El-Erian, as well as Lord Jacob Rothschild, chairman, and Andrew Knight, director, of Rothschild Investment Trust Capital Partners (RITCP).
The board of directors of EFG Hermes Holding Co. includes figures with links to the Fabian LSE such as Thomas S. Volpe, economics graduate of Harvard and LSE and Charles McVeigh III, former member of the LSE financial markets committee.
Just under four months following the official launch of the MU project, on 7-9 November 2008, the European section of the Rockefellers’ Trilateral Commission held a meeting in Paris, chaired by LSE chairman Peter Sutherland. Its summary stated that Mr. Obama’selection was “setting the stage for a broader change worldwide”; that France was undergoing a similar situation while playing an active role in the change of the EU; that this “new thrust” was expressed, among other things, by the Mediterranean Union, and the initiatives taken “to harness financial and economic turmoil with efficient solutions”; and concluded that the Euro-Med Project was intended as “a model for the World” (Trilateral Commission, Meeting Summary).
Indeed, in his Cairo speech of 4 June 2009 entitled “A New Beginning,” in which he addressed the Muslim world, US President Barack Obama praised Islam’s “tradition of tolerance” in Muslim-occupied Spain, welcomed Turkey’s leadership in the pro-Islamic Alliance of Civilisations (AoC) project and announced a “new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world.” In December 2012, he appointed Mohamed El-Erian (see above) chair of his Global Development Council (Leondis, 2012).
Britain’s own Fabian Socialist regime had been involved in the Islamisation effort long before Sarkozy’s initiative :
- In 2004, Fabian Foreign Secretary Jack Straw set up the Engaging with the Islamic World (EIW) Group as a department of the Foreign Office. By 2006, the group had a yearly budget of £8.5 million and supported the work of radical Islamists in the Middle East.
- In December 2004, in an address to the House of Commons, Fabian Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke in favour of Turkey’s entry into the European Union, welcoming the decision to begin entry negotiations as “a hugely important and welcome moment for Europe” and as the achievement of “an historic British objective” (Hansard, 20 Dec. 2004, cc. 1919-20).
- In October 2005, Fabian Foreign Secretary Jack Straw chaired the EU General Affairs Council meeting with Turkey’s entry into the EU “at the top of his list” (Straw, p. 427).
- In November 2005, Fabian Prime Minister (and European President) Tony Blair presided over the Tenth Anniversary of the Euro-Mediterranean Conference, Barcelona.
- In January 2006, under Fabian Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, the Foreign Office’s EIW Group launched the Festival of Muslim Cultures which ran until July 2007.
- In July 2006, under Fabian Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Office’s EIW Group sponsored and facilitated a large gathering of European Islamist organisations in Turkey which concluded that all Muslims in Europe should abide by the Koran as a means of “enriching Europe” and setting an example for non-Muslims to follow.
- In August 2006, in his Speech to the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles, Fabian Prime Minister Tony Blair praised the Koran as “progressive” and described medieval Muslim lands as “the standard-bearers of tolerance.” He later reaffirmed his belief that Islam was a “welcome contrast with the state of Christianity” and that “until around the European Renaissance, Islam was the greater repository of civilised thought” (Blair, 2011, p. 347). Needless to say, it is precisely such (unfounded) statements by Western leaders that play into the hands of Islamists.
- In November 2007, at the Opening Ceremony at the Bruges Campus, College of Europe, Bruges, Fabian Foreign Secretary David Miliband spoke in favour of unbreakable ties with Europe’s Muslim neighbour countries and inclusion of Turkey, the Middle East and North Africa, and stressed the need of developing shared institutions to overcome religious and cultural divides between Europe and Muslim countries (“EU ‘should expand beyond Europe’”, BBC News, 15 Nov. 2007).
Labour’s pro-Muslim policies are not only well-known, but have been admitted by prominent Muslim members of the party such as Sadiq Khan – a member of the Fabian Society executive – who in May 2010 declared that “Labour is, and has always been the Party of British Muslims” (“Khan: Labour’s the only way forward for British Muslims,” Left Foot Forward, 3 May 2010). Indeed, in January 2013, Miliband appointed Khan Shadow Minister for London and leader of Labour’s election campaign.
Clearly, there has been active participation by leading Fabians in an orchestrated international drive to:
- Cover up Islam’s traditional hostility to the Western world.
- Construct Islam as a “progressive” system.
- Promote Muslim domination of medieval Christian countries as a “model” for the future.
- Enforce progressively closer political, economic and cultural union of Europe with the Islamic world.
- Promote Muslim culture in Britain and abroad.
- Appoint Muslims to key positions in political, financial and other influentialorganisations.
The pro-Islamic stand of the LSE and related academic institutions is demonstrated by theirreceipt of vast sums of money from Islamic regimes (Pollard, 2011). As shown above, LSE chairman Peter Sutherland is a key promoter of Islamisation in Europe. In an address to the International Eucharistic Congress in June 2012, Sutherland declared that expecting Muslims to adapt to Western culture is “negativism” (Sutherland, 2012, p.8). A few days later, he infamously called on the European Union to “do its best” to “undermine the homogeneity” of member states (Select Committee on the European Union, p. 25).
The LSE’s close links to subversive Islamic regimes were further exposed in 2011 whenleaked diplomatic cables revealed that the son of Libyan dictator Gaddafi, Saif al-Islam, had arranged for 400 “future leaders” of Libya to receive leadership and management training at the LSE (Roberts, 2011).
Meanwhile, on 7 March 2013, Chatham House held a conference entitled “Understanding Counter-Jihad Extremism” purporting to discuss groups opposed to Islamisation like the English Defence League (EDL), which are deemed “extremist.” With Fabian speakers like Sunder Katwala, Gavin Shuker (MP for Luton South) and their collaborator and Chatham House associate fellow Matthew Goodwin, the conference was a Fabian event and clearly exposes the Fabian Society as a trend-setter for establishment disapproval of the British public’s legitimate opposition to Islamisation.
The Fabian web of subversion
The Fabian Society pursues the above policies through a worldwide spider-web of organisations at the centre of which there are a few dozen key institutions it has founded or over which it exerts direct or indirect control or influence, and of which we may give the following illustrative sample:
The Royal Economic Society (RES). Founded in 1890 as the British Economic Association by Fabian leader Bernard Shaw, the RES has always been run by members and collaborators of the Fabian Society, notably Lord Haldane, W H Beveridge, J M Keynes and R Portes.
The London School of Economics (LSE). Founded in 1895 by the Fabian Society and later funded by the Rockefellers. Operates in partnership with other Rockefeller-associated outfits like the Institute of Political Studies (IEP Paris) and the School of International and Public Affairs of Columbia University.
The LSE is currently chaired by Peter Sutherland, who is also chairman of Goldman Sachs International (the London-based HQ of the US investment banking group’s European operations), honorary chairman of the Trilateral Commission (Europe) and head of the UN Global Forum on Migration and Development. This clearly shows that the LSE interlocks with organisations representing the leading elements of international finance, as well as with the United Nations, an organisation the Fabian Society and its front organisation, the Labour Party, are promoting as a world government in the making.
Imperial College London. Founded in 1907 by Sidney Webb with the assistance of his friend Lord Haldane and their collaborator Lord Rosebery (who also served as president of the Fabians’ LSE and chancellor of London University), and with funds from Wernher,Beit (see above). Sir Evelyn de Rothschild has been a governor of Imperial College as well as of the LSE.
National Union of Students (NUS). Co-founded in 1922 by the LSE and London University (another Fabian-controlled institution with which the LSE had merged earlier).NUS is also a close collaborator of the Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS). See also Socialism Exposed.
National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR). Founded in 1938, NIESR is a Fabian-Keynesian outfit set up with Rockefeller funds by LSE graduate and banker Josiah Stamp. Its leading figures have included: LSE Professor of Economics and Political Science Tomothy Besley (chairman); Nicholas Monk, son of Fabian Society general secretary Bosworth Monk (president); Lord Burns, a fellow of the London School of Business, vice-president of the Royal Economic Society and director of the left-wing Pearson Group (president); and Jonathan Portes (director).
Oxfam. Co-founded in 1942 by Gilbert Murray, a friend of Fabian luminaries like G. B. Shaw and H. G. Wells and president of the Fabian organisation League of Nations Society (LNS).
London Business School (LBS), University of London. Founded in 1965 by representatives of the Fabian-controlled LSE and Imperial College.
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). Founded in 1965 under the government of former Fabian Society chairman Harold Wilson and having as chief executive leading Fabian Michael (later Lord) Young, who alone was responsible for the creation of over 60 like-minded organisations.
The ESRC was originally known as Social Science Research Council (SSRC) and was clearly a clone of the US organisation of the same name. The latter was founded in 1923 by Charles E. Merriam, who was associated with the American Fabian League and the London Fabian Society, in collaboration with the American Economic Association, itself founded by Fabian Society founders Thomas Davidson and Sidney Webb (Martin, pp. 123-4, 281).
While the American SSRC has been bankrolled by the Rockefellers and associated interests, its British counterpart has been funded by the Department for Business. The two organisations have always maintained close links to each other and to the LSE.
The John Smith Memorial Fund (JSMF). Founded in 1966 to promote the ideas of former Fabian and Labour leader John Smith. Its advisory board includes Fabians like Lord Dubbs, former Fabian Society chairman.
The Runnymede Trust. Set up in 1968 by Fabian Society honorary treasurer (later chairman) Anthony Lester and currently chaired by LSE graduate and founder of the Cultural Diversity Network, Clive Jones (see below).
Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), which has been described as an “interface between academia and the policy community,” was established in 1983 by Richard Portes, a former Rhodes Scholar and Harvard professor of economics with close links to Rockefeller interests and the Fabian Society, currently chairman of the International Growth Centre’s (an LSE outfit) Global Crisis Group. CEPR is funded by the Rockefellers’ JP Morgan and Citigroup and associated left-wing banks like UBS, Barclays, Bank of England, Bank for International Settlements and European Central Bank.
The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). Founded in 1988 with former LSE lecturer and Fabian Society chairman Tessa Blackstone, as chairman of the board of trustees. Advised by bodies like the Progressive Migration Advisory Group whose members include former Fabian Society general secretary Sunder Katwala.
Progress, a Blairite (New Labour) think-tank and pressure group co-founded in 1996 by Derek Draper and Liam Byrne. Draper was a top lobbyist with Brussels-based PR and government lobbying firm GPC Market Access which was owned by the Anglo-American PR consultancy Countrywide Porter Novelli, while Byrne, a former Fulbright Scholar at Harvard Business School, was a banker with N M Rothschild & Sons as well as a member of the Fabian Society.
Progress directors, chairmen and presidents have included leading Fabians like Fabian Society general secretary and later chairman Stephen Twigg; Jessica Asato, chairman of the Fabian Research and Publications Committee; and various other Fabian Society members, supporters, partners and collaborators such as Richard Angell, Dan Jarvis, Alison McGovern and John Woodcock. Progress sponsors, partners and collaborators include Fabian organisations like the Fabian Society, British Future and IPPR. Being affiliated with the Labour Party, Progress is a major source of Fabian influence on Labour after the Fabian Society.
The Smith Institute. Named after John Smith (see above), the institute was founded in 1997 by the Fabian Gordon Brown, a protégé of John Smith.
Policy Network. Founded in 1999 by Fabian Socialist Prime Minister Tony Blair, Germany’s Social Democrat Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and America’s Democratic President Bill Clinton, to promote international Socialism. Chaired by Fabian Lord Mandelson.
The Creative Diversity Network (CDN). Founded in 2000 as the Cultural Diversity Network by Carlton TV chief executive Clive Jones, the CDN is a coalition of television broadcasters ITV, BBC, ITN, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky, promoting cultural diversity.
Policy Exchange, established 2002. Although described as a “conservative think-tank,” we find among its senior research fellows the likes of John Willman, former general secretary of the Fabian Society.
Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD). Founded in 2006 by LSE chairman Peter Sutherland at the instigation of Rockefeller-lieutenant and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
British Future. Founded in 2007 and directed by the Fabian Sunder Katwala. Co-funded by LSE-graduate George Soros’ Open Society Foundation.
Migration Advisory Committee (MAC). Founded in 2007 by Fabian Home Secretary John Reid. Professor David Metcalf, Emeritus Professor at the Centre for Economic Performance at the LSE, was appointed chairman from December 2007 to August 2013.
UK Border Agency (UKBA). Formed in 2008 as the Labour Government’s border control agency by Fabian Immigration Minister and Progress co-founder Liam Byrne, a former Rothschild banker who is also co-founder of the Young Fabians magazineAnticipations.
Needless to say, the activities of the above organisations are largely taking place without the participation, knowledge or approval of the general public and often contrary to its wishes and interests. The involvement of charity organisations in Fabian schemes is particularly reprehensible, given that it exploits the unsuspecting public’s generosity in the cause of covert political agendas that ultimately work against the interests of the public.
It follows that the Fabian Society belongs to a network of subversive organisations seeking to expand their power and influence and impose an undemocratic agenda on Britain, Europe and the world by undemocratic means and in collaboration with undemocratic international money interests. This network and its activities must be indicted, exposed and combated by all citizens who value truth, democracy and freedom.
In the words of Eric Butler, the advance of the undemocratic Left or Communism “is not going to be halted until the Fabian socialist smokescreen is swept away by effective exposure and, even more important, the Fabian economic, financial and political policies are first halted and then reversed” (Butler, p. 47).
-----------
References and Further Reading
- Aldrich, Richard J., “OSS, CIA and European Unity: The American Committee on United Europe, 1948-60,” International History Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, London, Nov. 1995; also in Diplomacy & Statecraft, Vol. 8, No. 1, London, March 1997, pp. 184-227.
- Barker, Ernest, Political Thought in England from Herbert Spencer to the Present Day, Oxford, 1915, quoted in Pease, p. 186.
- Bauer, Peter Thomas, Dissent on Development, London, 1976.
- Bawer, Bruce, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying The West From Within, New York, NY, 2006.
- Blair, Tony, quoted in “A piece of Fabian history unveiled at LSE”, LSE News and Media, 20 April 2006.
- Blair, Tony, A Journey, London, 2011.
- Britain, Ian, Fabianism and culture, Cambridge, 1982.
- Butler, Eric D., The Fabian Socialist Contribution to the Communist Advance, Melbourne, 1964.
- Callaghan, John, The Labour Party and Foreign Policy: A History, Abingdon, Oxon, 2007.
- CFMEB (Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain), The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain: The Parekh Report, London, 2000.
- Cole, G. D. H., “The Fabian Society, Past and Present”, Fabian Tract No. 258, London, 1942.
- Cole, Margaret, The Story of Fabian Socialism, London, 1961.
- Corbineau, Bernard, “Le dialogue euro-arabe, instance du nouvel ordre international (1973-1978)”, Revue française de science politique, 1980, vol. 30, Nr. 3, pp. 560-598.
- Courtois, Stéphane et al., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, Engl. translation, Cambridge, MA and London, 1999.
- De Villemarest, Pierre, Facts & Chronicles Denied To The Public, vol. 2, 2003, English trans. Slough, Berkshire, 2004.
- Docherty, Gerry & Macgregor, James, Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War, Edinburgh, 2013.
- Dorril, Stephen, MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations, London, 2001.
- Ferguson, Niall, The House of Rothschild, 2 vols., New York, NY, 2000.
- Green, Andrew, “Paying the price for a decade of deception”, Daily Mail, 12 Feb. 2010).
- Griffin, G. Edward, The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations, Belmont, MA, 1964.
- Harrop Andrew, “Home affairs: too hot to handle?” in John Denham, ed., The Shape of Things to Come: Labour’s New Thinking, London, 2012, pp. 95-104.
- Harrop, Andrew, “Fabian review of the year”, Fabian Review, 21 Dec. 2012.
- Healey, Denis, The Time of My Life, London, 2006.
- Henderson, Archibald, George Bernard Shaw: His Life And Works, A Critical Biography, Cincinnati, OH, 1911.
- Hitchens, Peter, The Abolition of Britain: From Winston Churchill to Princess Diana, London, 2008.
- Holroyd, Michael, Bernard Shaw, 3 vols., London, 1991.
- Horowitz, David & Poe, Richard, The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals seized control of the Democratic Party, Nashville, TN, 2006.
- Jenkinson, Sofie, “Ed Miliband’s speech to the Fabian Society New Year Conference 2013”, Fabian Society, 12 January 2013.
- Jenkinson, Sofie, ed., Remaking the State: How should Labour govern?, London, February 2013.
- Jolley, Rachel and Katwala, Sunder, “Hopes and Fears: The British Future State of the Nation Report”, January 2012.
- Joppke, Christian, Immigration and the Nation-State, New York, NY, 1999.
- Katwala, Sunder, “What must be done?” Guardian, 21 December, 2005.
- King-Hall, Stephen, Chatham House: A Brief Account of the Origins, Purposes, and Methods of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, 1937.
- Knight, Nigel, Churchill: The Greatest Briton Unmasked, Newton Abbot, Devon, 2008.
- Laidler, Harry W., History of Socialism, New York, NY, 1968.
- Lawson, Neal, “Labour must admit it messed up on the economy.” Guardian, 13 Jan. 2012).
- Lenin, V. I., Collected Works (LCW), 45 vols., Moscow, 1960-70.
- Leondis, Alexis, “Obama Picks El-Erian to Lead Global Development Council,” Bloomberg News, 24 Dec. 2012.
- Martin, Rose, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A., Chicago, IL, 1966.
- Marx, K. & Engels, F., Selected Works (MESW) [English], 3 vols., Moscow, 1969.
- McKinstry, Leo, “How the Government has declared war on white English people,” Daily Express, 9 Aug. 2007.
- Monnet, Jean, Memoirs, London, 1978.
- Olivier, Sydney, “Hindu-Moslem Hostility: The New Bengal Regulations” (Letters to the Editor), The Times, July 10, 1926, p. 10.
- Patterson, Sheila, Immigration and Race Relations in Britain 1960-1967, London, 1969.
- Pease, Edward, R., History of the Fabian Society: The Origins of English Socialism, New York, NY, 1916.
- Phillips, Melanie, “The outrageous truth slips out: Labour cynically plotted to transform the entire make-up of Britain without telling us,” Daily Mail, 28 Oct. 2009.
- PIU/Home Office, “Preliminary Report On Migration”, 11 July 2000, published 18 Jan. 2010.
- Pollard, Stephen, “Libya and the LSE: Large Arab gifts to universities lead to ‘hostile’ teaching,” Daily Telegraph, 3 Mar. 2011.
- Pugh, Patricia, Educate, Agitate, Organize: 100 Years of Fabian Socialism, London, 1984.
- Quigley, Carroll, The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden, GSG & Associates, San Pedro, CA, 1981.
- Quilligan, James Bernard, “The Brandt Equation: 21st Century Blueprint for the New Global Economy,” Philadelphia, PA, 2002.
- Rappaport, Helen, Conspirator: Lenin in Exile, London, 2009.
- Ratiu, Ioan, The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy: 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.
- Rose, Kenneth, Exlusive Rothschild: The Life of Victor, Third Baron, London, 2003.
- Saleh, Heba, “Med investment project launched,” Financial Times, 1 May 2009.
- Schumpeter, Joseph A., Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 1942, 3rd edn., New York, NY, 1950.
- Select Committee on the European Union, House of Lords, “Inquiry on Global Approach to Migration and Mobility, 20 Jun. 2012,” uncorrected transcript, published 22 June 2012.
- Shaw, G. B., “The Early History of the Fabian Society,” Fabian Tract No. 41, London, 1892.
- Shaw, G. B., quoted in “Shaw and Lady Astor in Poland from Russia,” The Times, 1 Aug. 1931.
- Shell, Tony, “Progressive Politics: Being Rid of the English,” September 2011.
- Shell, Tony, “Killing the English,” July 2012.
- Sklar, Holly, Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Government, Boston, MA, 1980.
- Stone-Lee, Ollie, “1975 economic fears are laid bare,” BBC News, 29 Dec. 2005.
- Sutherland, Peter, “A Constructive Attitude to Migration is a Moral Issue,” Address to the International Eucharistic Congress, Dublin, 15 June 2012.
- Sutton, Antony C., The Federal Reserve Conspiracy, first published in 1995, reprinted in Carson City, NV, 2005.
- Trilateral Commission (Europe), Meeting Summary, 32nd European Regional Meeting, Paris, 7-9 November 2008.
- Walicki, Andrzej, Marxism and the Leap to the Kingdom of Freedom: The Rise and Fall of the Communist Utopia, Stanford, CA, 1995.
- Webb, Beatrice, Our Partnership, Drake, B. and Cole, M. eds., London, 1948.
- Wells, H. G., Russia in the Shadows, 1920, reprint Forgotten Books, 2012.
- West, Karl, “Tata’s British Empire – The Indian conglomerate is our biggest manufacturer but has enjoyed mixed fortunes, says Karl west,” The Sunday Times, 23 Sept. 2012.
- Whitehead, Tom, “Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser,” Daily Telegraph, 23 Oct. 2009.
- Whitehead, Tom, “Labour’s ‘secret plan’ to lure migrants,” Daily Telegraph, 9 Feb. 2010.
- Williamson, Kevin, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism, Washington, DC,2011
- Ye’or, Bat, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Madison, NJ, 2006.
Articles
- ’Revolt on the Right’: UKIP and the Fabian Socialist smoke-and-mirrors campaign
- Crimea, Ukraine and the Anglo-American New World Order
- Nelson Mandela: “President of the World” or “murderous terrorist”?
- Diversity is Not a Catholic Value
- If it’s Saturday, it’s the Germans again – or why the Mail has lost the plot
- Towards a British revolution
- Do white people have a future in South Africa?
- Romantic Conservatives: The Inklings in Their Political Context
- Is there a “need” for immigrants?
- The Labour Party, a puppet of the Fabian Society
- The truth about the Labour Party
- The truth about the Fabian Society
- The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy against humanity
- Socialism’s prescient critics
- The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism
- Britain divided by Islam, survey finds
- Abolish this corrupt chamber – the House of Commons, that is
- The Real Churchill
- The last days of a white world
- A Webb of Lies
- Socialism and Incentives
0 Comments
