Society: the masters of subversion unmasked
31 March 2013
Fabianism is a radical London-based movement
initiated in the 1880s for the purpose of subverting the existing order and
establishing a Socialist World Government controlled by its leaders and by
the financial interests associated with them.
London at the time was a centre of liberal
capitalism – itself a subversive movement – as well as of
radical left-wing agitation which sought to subvert the former. The main
radical organisation promoting Socialism in England was the International
Working Men’s Association (IWMA, a.k.a. “First International”),
established in 1864 by Karl Marx.
Marx’s doctrines were initially only
available in German and French, and had little impact on the British
public. His disciple Henry Hyndman was the first to popularise the
teachings of Marx and other German Socialists in the English language.
Hyndman was also the founder in 1881 of the Social Democratic Federation (Laidler, p. 186).
The elements responsible for founding the
Fabian Society were themselves influenced by Marxism and belonged to Social
Democratic Federation circles. What set the Fabian Society apart from
earlier Socialist organisations like the IWMA and SDF was the method by
which it sought to attain its objective. While other Socialists talked of
revolution, the Fabians resolved to build Socialism gradually and by
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 window carries the logo: “Remould
it [the World] nearer to the heart’s desire,” the last line from
a quatrain by the medieval Iranian poet Omar Khayyam
which reads: “Dear love,
couldst thou and I with fate conspire/To grasp this sorry scheme of things
entire,/Would we not shatter it to bits, and then/Remould it nearer to the
heart’s desire!” and which expresses the Fabians’
plan to destroy and reconstruct society along Fabian lines.
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
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.
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
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,
The true pacemakers of socialism
were not the intellectuals or agitators who preached it but the Vanderbilts, Carnegies and Rockefellers (Schumpeter, p.
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
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.
Society not only adopted Marx and Engels’ policies but was closely
connected with the same kind of interests:
Hubert Bland, a
bank-employee-turned-journalist, worked for the London Sunday Chronicle, a paper owned by newspaper magnate Edward Hulton, formerly of the Liberal Manchester Guardian. Bland was a co-founder of the Fabian
Society in 1884 and became a member of its executive and its long-serving
treasurer. He also recruited his friend and fellow journalist Bernard Shaw.
Shaw was working for the London Pall Mall Gazette, where leading
Liberal William T. Stead served as editor and Alfred (later Lord) Milner as
his assistant. Both Stead and Milner were close to diamond magnate and
Rothschild associate Cecil Rhodes and were involved in the formation of the
influential secret organisation known as the Milner Group. Having been
recruited to the Fabian Society by his friend Bland in 1884, Shaw recruited
Annie Besant and his friends Sidney Webb, Sydney
Olivier and Graham Wallas in 1885 and 1886.
Tellingly, the Fabians were also adept at
securing a higher social and financial position for themselves –
which shows that the “equitable share of natural and acquired
advantages” and the “complete substitution of public property
for private property” preached in the Fabian Basis and elsewhere were
not regarded by Fabians as binding on themselves.
Shaw’s friend and fellow Fabian
Society leader Sidney Webb married Beatrice, daughter of Richard Potter, a
wealthy financier with international connections who served as chairman of
the Great Western and Grand Trunk Railways of England and Canada. Beatrice was also a close friend of
Rothschild associate and Conservative Prime Minister Arthur Balfour. The
Great Western Railways (GWR) supported Webb’s fledgling London School
of Economics by booking courses for members of its staff at the school and
Webb also used his wife’s other connections to further his Fabian
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
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 Ratan Tata Department at the LSE, which later became the
Department of Social Sciences, whose first lecturer was Fabian Society
member and later New Fabian Research Bureau chairman Clement Attlee (West,
The Fabian Society
and the Rowntree Clan. Another Fabian line of connection with
industrial interests were the chocolate manufacturers Rowntree’s.
The company’s head Joseph Rowntree, who had
founded various charitable trusts in 1904, financed the Fabian
Society’s Commission for the Prevention of Destitution and from 1915
provided funds for the general work of the Society as well as for its
Research Department and special inquiries, including the one that produced International Government (Pugh, p.
129); his son Seebohm Rowntree,
who in addition to being an industrialist was also an avid social reformer,
collaborated with Beatrice Webb on the Royal Commission on the Poor Law
1905-9 (Webb, p. 332), and Rowntree trusts have
funded Fabian projects ever since.
The Fabian Society
and Cassel interests. The Fabian Society was also connected
with the international banker and financier Sir Ernest Cassel,
who was an associate of Rothschild, Schiff and Morgan interests. Cassel was persuaded by his friend Lord Richard
Haldane, a member of the Fabians’ Coefficients dining club and, from
1925, Fabian Society member, to bequeath large sums to the LSE (Butler, p.
When the Sir Ernest Cassel
Educational Trust was set up in 1919, Haldane, Liberal leader Herbert
Asquith (a friend of Cassel and Bernard Shaw) and
Lord Balfour (a close friend of Beatrice Webb and Shaw) were appointed
trustees. In 1924, the Trust provided substantial grants to the LSE,
establishing among others the Sir Ernest Cassel
Chair of International Relations (later International Relations
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
$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,
Another important loan of $4.34 billion was
negotiated in 1946 by Fabian economist John Maynard Keynes and facilitated
by his friend and collaborator Harry Dexter White who operated within the
US Treasury as well as the IMF. All these loans were organised under successive
Fabian Chancellors Hugh Dalton, Roy Jenkins and Denis Healey.
The Fabian Society itself continues to be
funded by subversive entities like the European Commission and the
Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS), an EU-wide operation
co-funded by the European Parliament, which works for a Socialist Europe.
The Society also operates in partnership
with global companies like Pearson, a long-time Lazard and Rothschild
associate. Pearson has been a major stockholder in the banking group Lazard
from the early 1900s. Lazard was identified by the historian Carroll
Quigley as the principal bank of the Anglo-American Establishment, a
left-wing international alliance consisting of the British Milner Group
(revolving around Rothschild interests) and America’s Eastern
Establishment (revolving around J. P. Morgan and Rockefeller interests).
Like Pearson, Lazard is a left-wing
operation with a long history of support for left-wing causes. It has been
a supporter of America’s Democratic President Barack Obama and has
hired leading Fabian Socialist Peter Mandelson as senior adviser.
Fabian control over the working classes
The monopolistic elements in liberal
capitalism had been able to secure control over resources (oil, gold,
steel, etc.) with the collaboration of the ruling upper classes whom they
were gradually replacing. However, the emergence of a less malleable new
class of industrial workers was threatening to disrupt the established
balance of power in industrial societies.
Therefore, leading liberal capitalists
– the big industrial, business and banking interests (Rothschild,
Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc.) – came to support social reform as a
means of appeasing the restive working classes and ultimately bringing them
under their control. The Fabian Society was the key organisation set up for
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
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).
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
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
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
The pamphlet “Labour and the New
Social Order,” also by Webb, was adopted as the Labour Party
“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.
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
Fabian percentage in the Labour Party membership. The Fabian Society
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
In 1945, 393 Labour candidates were elected
to Parliament, out of whom 229 were Fabian Society members.
In 1997, 418 Labour candidates were
elected, out of whom 200 were Fabian Society members.
Fabian percentage in Labour governments. By the time we come to the
Labour Party leadership, the proportion of Fabians comes close to 100 per
cent. The 1966 Labour Cabinet had twenty-one members out of which seventeen
were members of the Fabian Society and this proportion has remained
constant down to the present. Nearly the entire 1997 Labour Cabinet
(including Prime Minister Blair) was composed of Fabians (“The Fabian Society: a brief history,”Guardian, 13 Aug. 2001).
From inception, leading Fabians like Ramsay MacDonald, Arthur
Henderson, James (“Jim”) Middleton, Morgan Phillips and others
served as General Secretaries of the Labour Party.
All Labour governments from 1924 to 1997-2010 have consisted almost
exclusively of Fabian Society members;
All Labour Prime Ministers have been members of the Fabian Society;
All (or nearly all) leaders of the Labour Party have been members of
the Fabian Society;
All (or nearly all) deputy leaders of the Labour Party have been members
of the Fabian Society;
Future Labour leaders are groomed in the
Young Fabians, the Fabian Society’s under-31s section, who, like the
Society itself are affiliated to the Labour Party. Unsurprisingly, the
Young Fabians have been described as the “Labour MPs of the future”;
Fabian publications continue to provide the basis for Labour Party
policy (Harrop, “Fabian review of the year”; Jenkinson,
Remaking the State, etc.);
Labour leaders continue to profess their allegiance to Fabianism and
the Fabian Society:
In April 2006, while unveiling the Fabian
Window at the LSE, Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair said that a lot of the
values the Fabians stood for would be “very recognizable” in
today’s Labour Party(Blair, 2006).
Important Labour Party events are routinely
announced, launched or discussed at Fabian Society conferences. For
example, Ed Miliband announced his bid for the party leadership at a Fabian
Society conference in May 2010; Labour politicians and activists met under
the auspices of the Fabian Society to discuss party policy (Lawson, 2012).
In January 2013, at the Fabian
Society’s New Year Conference, Labour leader Ed Miliband declared
that he is “an avid reader of Fabian pamphlets” (Jenkinson, “Ed Miliband’s
The Fabian Society and its total control over
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”
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
“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
Economy: the London School of Economics, the Royal
Economic Society, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research
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.
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,
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.
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
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
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
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).
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
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
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:
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
(“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,
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
The unification of Europe was
also a key objective of US foreign policy as evident from numerous statements
by US leaders like President J F Kennedy in his “Declaration of
Interdependence” speech of 1962 (Monnet, p. 467).
It is also evident from
statements by British leaders like Labour Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, a
Fabian Society member, who pointed out in the House of Commons that America’s Economic
Co-operation Administration (ECA) was very keen on the economic and political unification
The ECA was the agency in
charge of administering financial aid to Europe as part of the European Recovery Plan a.k.a.
“Marshall Plan.” The Plan itself had been instigated by
Deputy-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs William Clayton and the ECA
was headed by Economic Co-operation Administrator Paul G Hoffman.
Both Clayton and Hoffman were members of
the Rockefeller-dominated Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and founders
of the US Committee for Economic Development (CED) in 1942 (Smoot, p. 52).
It follows that the Marshall Plan and the unification of Europe which was
stipulated as a precondition for Marshall Aid, were instigated and engineered
by the international bankers who, according to David Rockefeller, do not
plot cunning schemes with unscrupulous politicians.
Retinger aside, it was these
very same international bankers and politicians who in 1954 set up the
Bilderberg Group to co-ordinate American and European business and
political interests with a view to creating a united Europe –
primarily as a market for US business, but also as a step towards world
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,
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
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.
Policies related to working hours or wages
came to be adopted almost as an afterthought and for the obvious purpose of
falsely constructing Fabianism as a movement concerned with working-class
interests (Pease, p. 88).
All this exposes Fabianism as a project
that was as fraudulent as the Marxism from which its masterminds had lifted
their economic theories. To sugar-coat their calls for state control of the
economy, the Fabians called for growing involvement of the State in the
welfare of individual citizens, eventually leading to the cradle-to-grave
social security programme devised by William Beveridge in his 1942 Report.
Much of the Beveridge Report had in fact
been anticipated by work carried out by the Fabian Research Bureau and
published in 1943 as Social Security
under the editorship of William Alexander Robson (M. Cole, p. 298), an LSE
alumnus of political science who acted as the Fabians’
“expert” and adviser to local government. Moreover, Beveridge’s Report was massively promoted by the
Fabian Social Security Committee which also launched the Beveridge Social
Security League for the purpose.
Beveridge himself was a long-standing collaborator
of the Fabian leadership, had served as director of the Fabians’
London School of Economics from 1919 to 1937 and was a friend of the
Rockefeller family whom he tapped for funds for the LSE (Rockefeller, p.
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)
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
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.
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 Fabian Society, immigration and
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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,
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
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,
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”
However, the most important and dramatic
changes mass immigration brings about in a society are not cultural but
demographic, that is ethnic and
racial. You cannot import millions of ethnically and racially distinct
people into a given territory without changing the ethnic and racial
make-up of the host population. It follows that the real and most
disturbing agenda of Fabian-Labour policy aimed to change the ethnic and racial make-up of British society.
This is a very important point given that,
while the destruction of an entire nation’s cultural identity is
morally reprehensible, the forcible transformation of a population’s
ethnic and racial composition is an enterprise of a different order, coming
very close to the accepted definition of genocide – a very serious
crime not only in moral but also in legal terms.
These alarming developments have been
pointed out by a number of commentators, from Leo McKinstry
who notes that there is a “campaign of aggressive discrimination against
England’s indigenous population” ranging from
discrimination against individuals to discrimination against whole towns
and amounting to “war on the English people” (McKinstry, 2007), to Tony Shell who describes what is
happening as “genocidal population
change” and “progressive genocide” (Shell, 2011, p. 1;
Shell, 2012, p. 2).
As conceded by Fabian Society
general secretary Sunder Katwala,
multiculturalism in Britain never succeeded in engaging the majority white
population (Katwala, 2005). Reports by his
think-tank British Future have found that indigenous Britons are far less
optimistic about their future than the immigrant (black and Asian)
population (Jolley and Katwala,
2012). Typically, Katwala seems to be unable (or
unwilling) to understand that no project aiming to replace one population
with another can possibly enjoy the support of the population being
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.
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
“charities” operating in partnership with the Fabian Society,
funding its projects, or otherwise promoting its agenda, are the Webb
Memorial Trust and the Joseph Rowntree
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
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), Farzana Hakim, 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
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
The Fabian Society and Islamisation
The Fabians have always had a soft spot for
the exotic and, in particular, for subversive religious and
pseudo-religious movements that lent themselves to being used for Fabian
purposes. Among these were Freemasonry (leading Fabians like Annie Besant, A. R. Orage and
Clement Attlee, were members of Masonic lodges); Theosophy (of which Besant was also a leading light); and Gurdjeff’s “Fourth Way.”
Fabian interest in, and support of, Islam
was motivated by the following factors:
Empire politics. From the beginning, British
support of Islam was closely connected with imperial interests in South
Asia, North Africa and the Middle East.
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).
of the Muslim world. Fabianism’s own inroads into the Muslim world, in
particular, North Africa and the Middle East, made friendly relations with
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
The rise of Islam as a world
Muslim world’s growing economic and political power resulting from
oil revenues, again, made friendly relations with Islam imperative.
Muslim mass immigration. Mass immigration of Muslims
from South Asia and Africa facilitated by Fabian Labour policy created new
demographic and electoral realities which Fabian Labour governments –
both local and national – fully exploited to their advantage.
As oil was fast becoming a treasured
commodity thanks to the efforts of industrial and banking interests like
the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers – who controlled the Royal Dutch
Shell and Standard Oil (later Exxon) empires – the Fabians and their
collaborators among the ruling elites of the British Empire could hardly
have avoided taking a pro-Muslim stance.
And so, we find that in 1914 the government
of Liberal Prime Minister Herbert Asquith declared:
“One of [the
government’s] fundamental traditions is to be a friend of Islam and Muslums and to defend the Islamic Khalifate
even if it was a Khalifate of conquest as the
Turkish Khalifate …” (FO141/710/9).
Both Asquith and his Foreign Secretary
Edward Grey were close to the Fabian Society. Asquith was a close friend of
Bernard Shaw and helped the Fabian Ramsay MacDonald become Prime Minister
in 1924 and 1929. Grey was a member of the Fabian Society’s
Coefficients Club where collaboration between the Fabian Society, the
Milner Group and various political parties and business interests was
discussed and plotted.
This official pro-Muslim position was
confirmed by leading Fabian and Secretary of State for India (Lord) Sydney
Olivier, who wrote:
“No one with a close
acquaintance with Indian affairs will be prepared to deny that on the whole
there is a predominant bias in British officialism
in favour of the Moslem community, partly on the ground of closer sympathy
but more largely as a make-weight against Hindu nationalism”
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.
and the Islamic backlash
From the early 1890s onwards, the Fabians
were busy travelling around the world, setting up Fabian groups or quietly
spreading their teachings in nearly every country on earth (M. Cole, pp.
347-8). The Islamic Middle East and North Africa were no exception. In
1922, Turkey became a secular, Westernised republic.
By the 1950s, 60s and 70s, Socialism with
an Arab twist was spreading to the rest of the Islamic world: Egypt, Syria,
Iraq, Algeria, Libya and even Saudi Arabia where Prince Talal
Ibn Saud, the ruling
king’s brother, declared himself to be “a Fabian
Socialist” (Fabian News,
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
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.
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
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-Secretary Lipkowski to Foreign Minister Jobert
to Pompidou, was pro-Arab and the President himself was known for his
“Mediterranean vision.” But the Pompidou Administration was
also close to Rothschild interests. Pompidou himself had served as general
director of the Rothschild Freres, Paris, and as
manager of the French Rothschilds’ business empire until 1962, when
he became Prime Minister under de Gaulle.
The “development of Africa” had
always been a Rothschild plank, being inserted into the 1950 Schuman Declaration – which established the
European Coal and Steel Community (later EEC) – at the insistence of
Rothschild cousin and former manager of the Rothschild business empire,
Rene Mayer (Monet, p. 300). Of particular interest to the Rothschilds (and
to the Rothschild-associated Pompidou Administration) was North Africa,
especially oil-producing Arab countries like Algeria and Libya with whom
both the Rothschilds and the French government were linked through oil
interests: the French government’s CFP and the Rothschilds’
FRANCAREP were operating in the region alongside Shell (another
Rothschild-controlled operation), the Rockefellers’ Exxon and other
leading European and American companies.
The Fabians’ nationalisation
programme imposed on Britain under the Attlee regime after the war had
inspired oil-producing countries like Iran, where the Socialist Mohammad Mossadegh nationalised the oil industry in the early
1950s, followed by other Muslim countries in the 60s and 70s. Algeria and
Libya began nationalising French and other Western oil interests in 1971.
Libya, in particular, was a leader of the Arab conspiracy against the West
and, like its next-door neighbour Algeria, was run by a Socialist regime
– headed by Colonel Gaddafi, whose close links to the LSE and other
Fabian organisations are described in Socialism Exposed.
Another Socialist involved in the Euro-Arab
conspiracy was German Chancellor Willy Brand, who had started his political
career as co-founder and leader of the International Bureau of
Revolutionary Youth Organisations, the youth wing of the International Revolutionary
Marxist Centre, a.k.a. London Bureau. The Bureau was controlled by Fenner Brockway of the Independent Labour Party, who
was also leader of the League Against Imperialism and a prominent Fabian
Society member (Martin, p. 474).
In 1970, Brandt introduced the “Ostpolitik” (East Politics) approach of
collaboration with the Moscow-led Eastern Bloc at the instigation of US
National Security Adviser and Rockefeller lieutenant Henry Kissinger, which
made him the hero of the Labour Party. Brandt was also a long-time friend
and colleague of Healey and, as leader of Germany’s Social Democratic
Party, a leading figure in the Socialist International which Healey had set
up in the 1950s and of which Brandt was appointed president in 1976.
In the following year, US presidential
adviser, World Bank President, CFR director and Rockefeller associate
Robert McNamara appointed Brandt Chair of the UN Independent Commission on
International Development Issues (Brandt Commission). The Commission
produced the pro-Third World Brand Report which advocated a
“North-South Dialogue” involving the transfer of resources from
the North (the developed countries of the Northern hemisphere or First
World) to the South (the undeveloped Southern hemisphere or Third World) (Quilligan, 2002). Brandt’s proposals,
particularly the creation of a global body to manage economic
interdependence (Quilligan, p. 34) were clearly
along the lines of Healey’s IMF oil facility and similar Fabian
Kissinger and McNamara had also been
Healey’s friends since the 1950s and 60s, respectively (Healey, pp.
316, 307) and so had “Conservative” Prime Minister Edward
Heath, a friend of Healey from Balliol, who was instrumental in engineering
Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community or Common Market
– with the assistance of Pompidou and Willy Brandt. Interestingly,
IMF managing director Witteveen, who also became
a friend of Healey, was a follower of what Healey calls “the Persian
religion of Sufism.” In fact, Sufism is a form of Islam.
Another key element in the equation was
British Rothschild interests. Like their French counterparts, British
governments had traditionally close links to the Rothschilds. When the
chairman of the Fabian International Bureau, Philip Noel-Baker, became
Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in 1945, he surrounded himself with
members of Lord Victor Rothschild’s circle (Healey, p. 107).
On his part, Rothschild surrounded himself
with Fabians and Communists like John Strachey,
Anthony Blunt (the Soviet spy), Guy Burgess (another Soviet spy) and
Beatrice Webb’s grand niece, Teresa (“Red Tess”)
Mayor, all of whom shared Rothschild’s house in Bentinck
Street. Rothschild became a Labour peer later that year, and in the
following year married Mayor who had been his “personal
assistant” in MI5 during the war and was now Noel-Baker’s
private secretary (Rose, p. 113).
Noel-Baker himself became chairman of the
Labour Party in 1946 and later Commonwealth Secretary and Minister for Fuel
and Power. Rothschild became head of research at Royal Dutch Shell from
1961 to 1970 and then served as founding director of the Central Policy
Review Staff (CPRS), the cabinet think-tank advising the government, from
1971 to 1974, before becoming chairman of N. M. Rothschild and Rothschild
Continuation (the Zurich-based holding company of the Rothschild banking
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
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),
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
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.
Process and the Union for the Mediterranean: from “Dialogue” to
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
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
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 the Islamisation process.
CIDOB is also responsible for a number of
prominent publications promoting Islamisation
under the guise of “understanding,” “dialogue,”
etc., such as the annual Mediterranean
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
While thousands of think-tanks and other
organisations have been quietly preparing the ground for the scientific
“justification” and psychological acceptance of Islamisation, its latest political implementation is
exemplified by the Mediterranean Union (a.k.a. Union for the Mediterranean)
which expressly aims to achieve the political, economic and cultural union
of the EU with Islamic North Africa and the Middle East.
The project was launched by French
President Nicolas Sarkozy during his 2007
presidential campaign and was officially announcedat the Summit for the Mediterranean, Paris, on 13 July
2008, which was attended by 43 heads of state and government as well as by Amr Moussa of the Arab
League; Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu
of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference
(OIC); Jorge Sampaio of Alliance of Civilisations (AoC); and André Azoulay
of Anna Lindh Foundation (ALF).
special adviser – who later became head of the
Inter-ministerial Mission of the Union for the Mediterranean – was Henri Guaino, professor
at the Paris Institute of Political Studies (IEP Paris), where Sarkozy was a student in 1979-81. The Paris Institute
is an organisation run by the National Foundation of Political Science (FNSP), an outfit
funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, and operates in partnership
with other Rockefeller-associated outfits like the London School of
Economics and the School of International and Public Affairs of Columbia
University (of which Barack Obama is a graduate).
The Mediterranean Union (UM/UfM) project has enjoyed the full backing of the usual
left-wing financial and academic interests. Already in September 2007, the
Rockefeller-controlled Harvard Management Company (HMC), a subsidiary of
Harvard which invests the university’s $32 billion endowment,
launched its Middle East North Africa (MENA) Opportunities Fund
in collaboration with the Egyptian private investment bank EFG Hermes, a
founding member of the financial facility that bankrolls the UM project,
the InfraMed Infrastructure Fund (Saleh, 2009).
EFG Hermes’ co-CEO was Yasser El-Mallawany, former manager of the
Rockefellers’ Chase National Bank of Egypt, while the advisory
committee of the MENA Opportunities Fund itself included Harvard Management
Co. CEO Mohamed El-Erian, as well as Lord Jacob
Rothschild, chairman, and Andrew Knight, director, of Rothschild Investment
Trust Capital Partners (RITCP).
The board of directors of EFG
Hermes Holding Co. includes figures with links to the Fabian LSE such as
Thomas S. Volpe, economics graduate of Harvard and LSE and Charles McVeigh
III, former member of the LSE financial markets committee.
Just under four months
following the official launch of the MU project,
on 7-9 November 2008, the European section of the Rockefellers’
Trilateral Commission held a meeting in Paris, chaired by LSE chairman
Peter Sutherland. Its summary stated that Mr. Obama’s
election was “setting the stage for a broader change
worldwide”; that France was undergoing a similar situation while
playing an active role in the change of the EU; that this “new
thrust” was expressed, among other things, by the Mediterranean
Union, and the initiatives taken “to harness financial and economic
turmoil with efficient solutions”; and concluded that the Euro-Med
Project was intended as “a model for the World” (Trilateral
Commission, Meeting Summary).
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
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.
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
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
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
Cover up Islam’s traditional hostility
to the Western world.
Construct Islam as a
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
Appoint Muslims to key positions in
political, financial and other influential organisations.
The Fabians’ London
School of Economics itself with its closely linked Department
of International Relations and European Institute has been running “research,” courses, seminars,
workshops, lectures and other events promoting “advanced
thinking” on the EU and EU-Muslim relations. In 2010, a new
pro-Islamic outfit going by the name of “Centre for Middle Eastern
Studies” was added to the LSE arsenal.
The pro-Islamic stand of the
LSE and related academic institutions is demonstrated by their receipt of vast sums of money from Islamic regimes
(Pollard, 2011). As shown above, LSE chairman Peter Sutherland is a key
promoter of Islamisation in Europe. In an address
to the International Eucharistic Congress in June 2012, Sutherland declared
that expecting Muslims to adapt to Western culture is
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).
close links to subversive Islamic regimes were further exposed in 2011 when
leaked 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,
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
University of London. Founded in 1965 by representatives of the
Fabian-controlled LSE and Imperial College.
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
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
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).
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
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
Border Agency (UKBA). Formed in 2008 as the Labour Government’s
border control agency by Fabian Immigration Minister and Progress
co-founder Liam Byrne, a former Rothschild banker who is also co-founder of
the Young Fabians magazine Anticipations.
Needless to say, the activities of the above
organisations are largely taking place without the participation, knowledge
or approval of the general public and often contrary to its wishes and
interests. The involvement of charity organisations in Fabian schemes is
particularly reprehensible, given that it exploits the unsuspecting
public’s generosity in the cause of covert political agendas that
ultimately work against the interests of the public.
It follows that the Fabian Society belongs
to a network of subversive organisations seeking to expand their power and
influence and impose an undemocratic agenda on Britain, Europe and the
world by undemocratic means and in collaboration with undemocratic
international money interests. This network and its activities must be
indicted, exposed and combated by all citizens who value truth, democracy
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).
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.
Ernest, Political Thought in England
from Herbert Spencer to the Present Day, Oxford, 1915, quoted in Pease,
Bauer, Peter Thomas, Dissent on
Development, London, 1976.
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,
Butler, Eric D., The Fabian Socialist Contribution to the
Communist Advance, Melbourne, 1964.
John, The Labour Party and Foreign
Policy: A History, Abingdon, Oxon, 2007.
(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,
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.
Villemarest, Pierre, Facts &
Chronicles Denied To The Public, vol. 2, 2003, English trans. Slough,
Ferguson, Niall, The House of Rothschild, 2 vols.,
New York, NY, 2000.
“Paying the price for a decade of deception,” Daily Mail, 12 Feb. 2010).
Edward, The Fearful Master: A Second
Look at the United Nations, Belmont, MA, 1964.
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.
Andrew, “Fabian review of the year,” Fabian Review, 21 Dec. 2012.
Healey, Denis, The Time of My Life, London, 2006.
Henderson, Archibald, George Bernard Shaw: His Life And Works,
A Critical Biography, Cincinnati, OH, 1911.
Holroyd, Michael, Bernard Shaw, 3 vols., London, 1991.
Jenkinson, Sofie, “Ed Miliband’s speech to the Fabian
Society New Year Conference 2013,” Fabian Society, 12 January 2013.
Jenkinson, Sofie, ed., Remaking
the State: How should Labour govern?, London, February 2013.
Jolley, Rachel and Katwala, Sunder, “Hopes and Fears: The British Future
State of the Nation Report,” January 2012.
Christian, Immigration and the
Nation-State, New York, NY, 1999.
“What must be done?” Guardian,
21 December, 2005.
King-Hall, Stephen, Chatham House: A Brief Account of the
Origins, Purposes, and Methods of the Royal Institute of International
Affairs, London, 1937.
Laidler, Harry W., History of Socialism, New York, NY,
“Labour must admit it messed up on the economy.” Guardian, 13 Jan. 2012).
Lenin, V. I., Collected Works (LCW), 45 vols.,
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.
Leo, “How the Government has declared war on white English
people,” Daily Express, 9
Monnet, Jean, Memoirs, London, 1978.
“Hindu-Moslem Hostility: The New Bengal Regulations” (Letters
to the Editor), The Times, July
10, 1926, p. 10.
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.
“The outrageous truth slips out: Labour cynically plotted to
transform the entire make-up of Britain without telling us,” Daily Mail, 28 Oct. 2009.
“Preliminary Report On Migration”, 11 July 2000, published 18
Pollard, Stephen, “Libya and the LSE: Large Arab gifts to
universities lead to ‘hostile’ teaching,” Daily Telegraph, 3 Mar. 2011.
Pugh, Patricia, Educate, Agitate, Organize: 100 Years of
Fabian Socialism, London, 1984.
Quigley, Carroll, The Anglo-American Establishment: From
Rhodes to Cliveden, San Pedro, CA, 1981.
Bernard, “The Brandt Equation: 21st Century Blueprint for
the New Global Economy,” Philadelphia, PA, 2002.
Rappaport, Helen, Conspirator: Lenin in Exile, London,
Conspiracy, Richmond, 2012.
Laura, “LSE struck deal to train Libya’s future leaders,”
Daily Telegraph, 3 Mar. 2011.
Rockefeller, David, Memoirs, New York, NY, 2002.
Rose, Kenneth, Elusive Rothschild: The Life of Victor,
Third Baron, London, 2003.
Saleh, Heba, “Med investment project launched,” Financial Times, 1 May 2009.
Schumpeter, Joseph A., Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy,
1942, 3rd edn., New York, NY, 1950.
Select Committee on the European Union, House of Lords,
“Inquiry on Global Approach to Migration and Mobility, 20 Jun.
2012,” uncorrected transcript, published 22 June 2012.
Shaw, G. B., “The
Early History of the Fabian Society,” Fabian Tract No. 41, London, 1892.
Shaw, G. B., quoted in
“Shaw and Lady Astor in Poland from Russia,” The Times, 1 Aug. 1931.
“Progressive Politics: Being Rid of the English,” September
“Killing the English,” July 2012.
Holly, Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite
Planning for World Government, Boston, MA, 1980.
Ollie, “1975 economic fears are laid bare,” BBC News, 29 Dec. 2005.
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.
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.
Beatrice, Our Partnership, Drake,
B. and Cole, M. eds., London, 1948.
Wells, H. G., Russia in the Shadows, 1920, reprint
Forgotten Books, 2012.
“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.
Tom, “Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural,
says former adviser,” Daily
Telegraph, 23 Oct. 2009.
Tom, “Labour’s ‘secret plan’ to lure
migrants,” Daily Telegraph,
9 Feb. 2010.
Bat, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Madison, NJ,
’Revolt on the Right’: UKIP and the Fabian
Crimea, Ukraine and the Anglo-American New World Order
Nelson Mandela: “President of the World” or
Diversity is Not a Catholic Value
it’s Saturday, it’s the Germans again – or why the Mail has lost the plot
a British revolution
Do white people have a future in South Africa?
Conservatives: The Inklings in Their Political Context
there a “need” for immigrants?
The Labour Party, a puppet of the Fabian Society
The truth about the Labour Party
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
Ratiu, Ioan, The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy: How an international elite is taking
over and destroying Europe, America and the World, Richmond, 2012.
Quigley, Carroll, The Anglo-American Establishment: From
Rhodes to Cliveden, GSG & Associates, San
Pedro, CA, 1981.
Martin, Rose, Fabian
Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A., Chicago,
Eric D., The Fabian Socialist
Contribution to the Communist Advance, Melbourne, 1964.
Dorril, Stephen, MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations, London, 2001.
Horowitz, David &
Poe, Richard, The Shadow Party: How George
Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals seized control of the
Democratic Party, Nashville, TN, 2006.
Ye’or, Bat, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Madison, NJ,
Bawer, Bruce, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying The West From
Within, New York, NY, 2006.
et al., The Black Book of Communism:
Crimes, Terror, Repression, Engl. translation, Cambridge, MA and
Williamson, Kevin, The Politically Incorrect Guide to
Socialism, Washington, DC,
Hitchens, Peter, The Abolition of Britain: From Winston Churchill to Princess Diana,
Knight, Nigel, Churchill: The Greatest Briton Unmasked,
Newton Abbot, Devon, 2008.
Docherty, Gerry &
Macgregor, James, Hidden History: The
Secret Origins of the First World War, Edinburgh, 2013.