Exposing the Labour Party
6 January 2013
The Labour Party is the largest, most
powerful and most destructive group to have infiltrated British society and
taken over political power in modern history.
is why everything about the Labour Party is deceptive, anti-democratic and
The Labour Party has its roots
in Fabian Socialism, a subversive ideology inspired by Marxism (see Socialism Exposed) and representing
international financial interests, which aims to create a NEW WORLD ORDER
while claiming to promote “social justice,”
“welfare,” “prosperity,” etc.
The Labour Party was created by
the Fabian Society whose leaders covertly advocated dictatorship while
ostensibly promoting “democracy.”
The Labour Party has been
responsible for introducing policies like mass immigration and
multiculturalism, designed to destroy traditional British society and
culture and reconstruct it in line with its internationalist schemes.
The Labour Party’s policy
of state-sponsored mass immigration has resulted in wages being kept down
and living costs going up, exposing it as a fraudulent organisation working
against the interests of the working classes (indeed, of the whole
population) whom it claims to represent.
History of the Labour Party
In 1884, a small group of Liberals and Radicals
with links to financial interests established the Fabian Society of London
as an organisation aiming to “reconstruct society” on Socialist
lines (Pease, pp. 25-6).
Over the next few years, the Fabian Society
set up local societies all over the country and, in 1893, these were merged
to form the Independent Labour Party (ILP).
In 1900, the Fabian Society and the ILP
formed the Labour Representation Committee (LRC).
The ILP and the LRC (later called Labour
Party) became the two main political instruments through which the Fabian
Society controlled Britain’s Socialist movement.
In 1903, the LRC made a secret pact with
the Liberal Party against the Conservatives, enabling it to win 29 seats in
the 1906 general elections.
Soon after the 1906 elections, the
organisation was renamed The Labour Party and the ILP became affiliated to
In 1913, Beatrice Webb
remarked that the Fabian Society and the Independent Labour Party were well
on the way to controlling the policy of Britain’s Labour and Socialist
movement (M. Cole, p. 167).
Indeed, true to its Fabian strategy, the
Labour Party soon began to displace its former Liberal allies and by 1922
it became one of the two major political parties. In 1924 and 1929 it
formed a minority government and in 1945 it formed its first majority
government under Fabian Prime Minister Clement Attlee.
Already in 1905, the Labour Representation
Committee had declared as its ultimate object the overthrow of Capitalism
and “the institution of a system of public ownership of all means of
production, distribution and exchange.” In the same vein, the Labour
Party constitution adopted in 1918, written by Fabian leader Sidney Webb,
aimed to establish state ownership of the means of production as well as
state control of all industries and services (Pugh, p. 138).
Following the 1917 Communist Revolution in
Russia, the Labour Party was quiet about the new regime for fear of being
associated with revolutionary violence. However, by the early 1930s, the
rise of nationalism and anti-Communism in Europe forced Labour leaders to
show their true colours.
In 1931, Fabian Society leader Sidney Webb
declared his belief that the Soviet Union was a model Fabian State (Cole,
p. 255). In 1932, Webb and his wife Beatrice visited the Soviet Union and
published a massive study eulogising Stalin’s Communist regime as a
“new civilisation” to be emulated by the world (Soviet Communism: A New Civilization,
Similarly, Leonard Woolf, another leading
Fabian who was secretary of the Labour Party’s Imperial and
International Advisory Committees, described the Soviet Union as “the
greatest civilisation in human history” (Callaghan, p. 121).
During World War II, Labour MPs who had
joined Winston Churchill’s coalition government began to campaign for
Socialist policies like nationalisation, “social welfare” based
on increased taxation and, in particular, co-operation with the Soviet
Union as “the principal rallying point for the forces of Socialism
throughout the world” (Callaghan, p. 156)
On its election to office in 1945, the
Labour government under PM Clement Attlee introduced the Beveridge Plan
which created the “cradle to grave” welfare or Nanny State to
deflect attention from its real agenda, which was the nationalisation of
industries and services in imitation of the Soviet model and the
dismantling of the British Empire in preparation for the establishment of
world Socialist government.
Among other Socialist projects, Labour was instrumental
in the creation of the United Nations (UN) which was run by pro-Soviet
Socialists advised by Soviet Communist officials (Griffin, pp. 110, 114,
117-8), the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the European
Union (originally European Coal and Steel Community).
Well into the 1960s, the Labour Party
(under Harold Wilson) promoted the idea of the Soviet Union as a superior
social and economic model to be emulated by Britain (Callaghan, p. 156).
While its rhetoric has become more guarded and sophisticated, the Labour
Party’s policies continue to be dictated by the old ideology of its
Fabian founders, which explains the catastrophic results successive Labour
governments have had on Britain and the world.
The Fabians’ ongoing hold on Labour
As admitted by the Fabian Executive itself,
from the very start the Fabians were the “brainworkers” of the
Labour Party (Fabian News, XXIX
(5), Apr. 1918 in Pugh, p. 138). Fabians wrote Labour’s manifestos,
programmes and policies, campaigned for Labour and stood for elections as
Labour candidates, and the Fabian Society continues to influence Labour
policy from within the party to this day.
All Labour governments have
been dominated by Fabian Society members. For example, following the 1997 election, nearly the entire Labour Cabinet (including Prime
Minister Blair) was composed of Fabians and there were about 200 Fabian
MPs in the House of Commons (“The Fabian Society: a
brief history,” Guardian,
13 August 2001).
The Young Fabians, the Fabian
Society’s under-31s section, who, like the Society itself are
affiliated to the Labour Party, have been described as the “Labour MPs of the future” and all Labour
Prime Ministers have been members of the Fabian Society.
While other interests, such as
trade unions, also enjoy a degree of influence on Labour, no other
organisation comes anywhere near the domination, indeed, control, commanded
by the Fabian Society. What becomes indisputable is that the Labour Party
is a front organisation of the Fabian Society.
Labour’s utter betrayal of the country
The areas on which the Labour Party has met
strong – and fully justified – criticism from both rival
parties (the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats) and the general
public include: the economy, education, social breakdown, extremism, crime,
immigration, multiculturalism and Islamisation.
The Economy under Labour
policies were already exposed as bogus in the 1950s, following its
introduction of Marxist-inspired measures such as the nationalisation of
coal, iron and steel industries.
1997-2010. The policies imposed
by Labour Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown following the Labour
take-over of 1997 resulted in the longest and deepest recession since World
War II, creating an unprecedented budget
deficit of £90 billion in 2008/09. The apparent economic
“boom” of the first years of Labour rule turned out to be a
typical Labour con based on a corrupt credit system. As pointed out by the Guardian, not only is the
deterioration of the public finances unprecedented, but it is due to the
credit crunch which began in 2007 (“UK budget deficit hits record
£90bn,” 22 Apr. 2009). The
Labour-created economic disaster left three million people unemployed.
In the face of the facts Labour
leader Ed Miliband was forced to declare that his party “take
responsibility for the financial crisis that took place in
2007-2008.” Typically, he conveniently added that the Labour
government “didn’t regulate the banks properly,” thereby
admitting responsibility and blaming “the banks” in the same
breath (“Miliband: ‘We Take Responsibility’ For
Crash,” Sky News, 28 Sept.
The 2010 British Social Attitudes Survey, conducted by the National Centre
for Social Research, has shown that after thirteen year of Labour rule the
majority of British people rejected Labour policies like increased
taxation, public services spending and, in particular, the welfare system
which was seen as lending itself to abuse and preventing people from
standing on their own feet (“Labour has pushed public opinion to the
right, national survey suggests,” The
Times, 26 Jan. 2010).
The Education System under Labour
system had already fallen into the hands of the Fabian Society in the late
1880s and early 1900s, when its members got themselves elected to the
London School Board, the London County Council and the Technical Education
Board (Pease, p. 83).
In 1934, the Labour Party took
control of the London County Council – responsible for elementary and
secondary schools – and similar bodies across the country. It had
earlier seized control in universities and other institutions like the
Fabian-created London School of Economics (LSE).
policies have been severely criticised by leading figures from politicians
to business and industry leaders. A poll by the charity Business in the
Community has found that many young people are unemployable, lacking skills
from reading and writing to punctuality, presentation and communication
(“School leavers are not fit for work, says M&S chief,” Daily Mail, 24 Nov. 2009). Office
for National Statistics figures show that there were 100,000 unemployed
graduates under 25 in 2009.
fact that the Labour regime has found it necessary to import millions of
skilled workers from countries like Pakistan speaks for itself. It shows
that in spite of the vast amounts of tax-payers’ money invested in
it, Britain’s education system is worse than that of failed Third
The breakdown of British society under Labour
Already in the 1950s and 60s,
British people’s traditional strong sense of family life and
attachment to Christian values were labelled “unadmirable”
and “undesirable” by Labour ideologists (Wollheim,
p. 12). This was no accident. Karl Marx himself in his Communist Manifesto had boasted that Communists wanted to
abolish the family.
As Tony Blair himself admitted,
“the old left tended to ignore the importance of the family” (Rentoul, p. 201).
Unfortunately for the
long-suffering British people, the “new” Left changed its
policies about as much as leopards change their spots.
“old” or “new,” Labour policy has been to ignore
the importance of marriage in the development and progress of children,
allegedly so as not to appear “discriminatory or judgemental”
towards unmarried and single parents.
direct result of this has been that in 2009 married couples became a
minority in Britain for the first time in history and this in turn has led
to a rise in broken homes and the anti-social and criminal behaviour that
comes with it.
The Labour Schools Secretary,
Ed Balls, belatedly admitted that this policy was a mistake (“Labour
does U-turn on love and marriage,” The Sunday Times, 27 Dec. 2009).
overall result of Labour policies has been than the overwhelming majority
of Britons (70%) now believe that British society is broken
(“We’re living in broken Britain, say most voters,” The Times, 9 Feb. 2010).
The rising crime wave under Labour
Although Labour came to power
in 1997 with the pledge of being “tough on crime, tough on the causes
of crime,” the truth is that with the rise of broken homes resulting
from Labour’s anti-family policies, there has been a rise in
anti-social and criminal behaviour among young people.
In 2000 there was a significant
rise in violent crime and this trend continued unchanged during the
Blair-Brown regime (“Big rise in violent crime,” BBC News, 18 Jul. 2000; “How
the police missed the violence,” BBC
News, 23 Oct. 2008).
Gavin Lockhart, head of Policy
Exchange’s crime and justice unit has said: “After a decade of
unprecedented spending on policing, courts and prisons, England and Wales
have a recorded crime rate twice that of the European average”
(“UK failing on causes of crime,” BBC News, 11 May 2009). In
particular, religion-motivated extremism has become a new cause of crime
Immigration under Labour
In 1948, Labour Prime Minister Clement
Attlee passed the British Nationality Act allowing all 800 million
inhabitants of the British Empire to enter, live
and work in the UK without restriction. Although public opinion forced it
to introduce some restrictions on immigration, the Labour Party’s
policy has been to allow more and more immigrants into Britain under
various false pretences like the “need of skilled workers,”
In 1997-2010, Labour’s Blair-Brown
regime imposed an official, deliberate and systematic policy of mass
immigration, while blatantly lying about the true extent of immigration (“Labour lied to public about immigration, says
Ed Miliband’s aide Lord Glasman,” Daily Telegraph, 17 Apr. 2011).
Labour’s policy of mass immigration, that is, deliberate and
systematic import of cheap labour from abroad, has resulted in wages being
kept artificially down, and clearly exposes Labourism
– a system ostensibly representing the British working class –
as a fraudulent system.
Indeed, far from representing
the interests of the British public, mass immigration advances the agenda
of private financial and industrial interests. Bank of England governor Mervyn
King has said that cheap foreign labour helps keep wages down and Digby Jones, director-general of the Confederation of
British Industry (CBI) which was created by Shell, BP, Ford and associated
interests, has declared that a cap on immigration would reduce the
“flexibility” of the British labour market (“Figuring out
role of migrant workers,” Financial
Times, 4 May 2005).
in the FT, which is owned by the
Lazard-associated Pearson, former Wall
Street Journal editor Amity Shlaes wrote that
the aim of any party should be to win the votes of immigrants and friends
of immigrants (“The right must learn the comfort of the strangers:
Conservatives are falling into the same trap as Republicans by railing
against immigration, not supporting growth,” FT, 10 Apr. 2001). Similarly, The Economist, co-owned by the Rothschilds, has claimed that
restricting the number of talented immigrants damages the City’s
prospects (“Global finance: Save the City,” The Economist, 7 Jan. 2012).
the demise of the Blair-Brown regime in 2010, immigration policies remained
largely the same due to government advisory bodies like the Migration
Advisory Committee (MAC) which was set up by Labour in 2007 and is run by
the likes of Professor David Metcalf, Emeritus Professor at the Centre for
Economic Performance at the pro-immigration London School of Economics
(LSE) and Dr Martin Ruhs, director of the
Migration Observatory at Oxford University, who has served as adviser to a
string of pro-immigrant bodies like the International Labour Organization
(ILO), the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the Global
Commission on International Migration (GCIM) and the UN Development Programme (UNDP).
Multiculturalism under Labour
In 1966, Labour Home Secretary and future
President of the European Commission, Roy Jenkins – a former Fabian
Society Chairman – initiated a shift in government policy from assimilation
of immigrants to state-promoted “integration accompanied by cultural
diversity” or multiculturalism (Patterson, p. 113).
The dishonest intent of Jenkins’
actions is evident from the fact that he deliberately waited until after
the elections (in which Labour won an increased majority) to start
promoting this change of policy (Banton, p. 71).
Since then, the policy of the
Labour Party has been to transform Britain into a multicultural society.
This is supposed to “enrich” British culture and make British
society “better,” “more competitive” and
The 1997-2010 Labour
regime’s relaxation of immigration controls was a deliberate plan
“to open up the UK to mass migration” in order to make it
“more multicultural” (“Labour wanted mass immigration to
make UK more multicultural, says former adviser,” Daily Telegraph, 23 Oct. 2009).
the case of mass immigration, multiculturalism has been made a virtual
taboo subject. The British people have been given absolutely no say on the
matter and all objective and critical discussion has been systematically
suppressed and stifled.
“Anti-racism” under Labour
policies led to the transformation of Britain into a multiracial society.
The resulting inter-racial tensions were then used by Labour politicians to
win the votes of immigrant communities and muster support for its
anti-majority policies. “Anti-racism” has become Labour’s
tool of choice for suppressing the rights of the indigenous population (Lewis,
pp. 137 ff.), in effect becoming a new form of racism directed against the
For example, Camden
Council’s 1978 employment policy stated:
“If two people of equal ability
but of different colour apply for a job, we will
pick the coloured person because coloured people are so underrepresented at the
moment” (Joppke, pp. 230-1).
anti-indigenous policy married up with European Union legislation which led
to an extraordinary situation where EU-nationals enjoyed more immigration
rights in Britain than did British citizens (Joppke,
Labour’s promotion of Islam and the spread
of Islamic Extremism
The Labour policies of uncontrolled and
unlimited immigration from Islamic countries, especially Pakistan; shambolic student visa system; mandatory multiculturalism;
systematic sponsorship of Islamic schools, cultural centres, charities and
mosques; appointment of Muslims in key positions in the Labour Party,
Ministry of Justice, Home Office (responsible for immigration and asylum),
Social Services, etc., have enabled Islamic extremist organisations to
infiltrate all sections of British society and obtain support, funds and
recruits for their anti-British activities.
In 1998, under Tony Blair’s newly
elected “New Labour” regime, Nazir Ahmed who
was born in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, became
Britain’s first Muslim life peer.
In 2000, Tony Blair infamously
stated in an interview with Muslim
News: “There is a lot of misunderstanding about Islam. It is a
deeply reflective, peaceful and very beautiful religious faith and I think
it would be hugely helpful if people from other religious faiths knew more
about it” (Muslim News,
In August 2006, Tony Blair
praised the Koran as “progressive” and Muslim-occupied
countries as “the standard-bearers of tolerance” (Speech to the
World Affairs Council in Los Angeles, 1 Aug. 2006).
belief in a religion’s apparent ability to invade and subjugate
entire nations while at the same time bearing the “standard of
tolerance” is worthy of psychiatric analysis. Unfortunately, it has
become the norm in the current left-wing dominated political climate and
those who dare challenge it are attacked and silenced by the new order and
In a similar vein, Blair also
boasted that he reads the Koran every day which he claims
keeps him “faith literate” (Drury, 2011).
In June 2007, under Labour
Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Shahid Malik became Britain’s first Muslim Minister,
being appointed International Development Minister (and later Justice
Minister, Home Office Minister and Minister for Race, Faith and Community
As revealed by a Policy
Exchange report in 2009, ₤90 million spent on “fighting Islamic
extremism” actually went to groups linked to extremist organisations
like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Jamaat-e
Islami in Pakistan. Other beneficiaries included
the Muslim Council of Britain, the United Kingdom Islamic Mission and the
Islamic Society of Britain. In an attempt to win Muslim votes, in Luton
alone the Home Office project “Preventing Violent Extremism” funded seven Muslim centres (“How the
Government pays Muslims to vote Labour,” Daily Telegraph, 17 March 2009).
In 2010, Labour appointed as
Shadow Lord Chancellor Sadiq Khan who, not
surprisingly, declared that “Labour is, and has always been the Party of
British Muslims” (“Khan:
Labour’s the only way forward for British Muslims,” Left Foot Forward, 3 May 2010).
In 2013, Labour Leader Ed
Khan Shadow Minister for London and leader of Labour’s election campaign:
The Labour regime’s cooperation with Islamic
While not all Muslims are
extremists, all Muslim populations have an extremist percentage. As the
Muslim population in Britain grows, the extremist percentage grows, too. A
population of two million Muslims means thousands of extremists, i.e., too
many for the intelligence services and the police forces to monitor and
pointed out by leftist journalist Polly Toynbee, the Left has embraced the extreme
Islamist cause, which excites its revolutionary zeal (“We must be
free to criticise without being called racist,” Guardian, 18 Aug. 2004).
Labour Socialism has always
sided with Islamic extremism in its effort to create a “New World
Order”. This is why Labour has been unwilling to antagonise the
Muslim minority by tackling its extremist elements. The Labour policy has
not been one of eradication of Islamic extremism, but one of
“containment” by bribing the Muslim minority and its extremist
elements through concessions and cooperation.
In 2004, the UK Foreign Office
(headed by Jack Straw) set up the Engaging with the Islamic World (EIW)
Group consisting of 18 civil servants, including Muslims, and led by the
pro-Muslim Frances Guy. As Ambassador to Lebanon, Guy later praised Grand
Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, a supporter
of Iran with links to Hezbollah terrorists, as a “true man of
religion,” adding that the world needed more
like him. In 2007, the FO merged EIW with its Counter Terrorism (CT)
programme to form the “Countering Terrorism and Radicalisation
In May 2006, the Foreign Office
held a conference entitled “Challenging Stereotypes in Europe and the Islamic World” at
Wilton Park, to discuss “Islamophobia” in the UK and related
issues. The Conference was convened at the request of the Organisation of
the Islamic Conference (OIC) and was attended by Guy’s EIW Group.
In July 2006, the Foreign
Office (headed by Margaret Beckett) sponsored a large gathering of European
Islamist organisations in Turkey which concluded that all Muslims in Europe
should abide by the Koran as a means of “enriching Europe” and setting an
example for non-Muslims to follow (Pargeter, pp.
198-9; Topkapi Declaration, 2 Jul. 2006).
This warped strategy even
applies to the British campaign in Afghanistan. For example, in 2008 Labour
Government plans were exposed for intending to build a secret military
training camp for thousands of Taliban fighters to “make them swap
sides” (“Revealed: British plan to build training camp for
Taliban fighters in Afghanistan,”Independent,
4 Feb. 2008).
In Britain, the established
policy of intelligence services and police forces has been to collaborate
with some extremists in order to keep other extremists down. Inevitably,
the extremists are playing their own games with the intelligence services,
the overall result being that Islamic extremists and State authorities are
collaborating with each other against the interests, safety and security of
the British people.
organisations recruiting Muslim fundamentalists under Blair’s New
Labour regime were:
MI6, which recruited
Indian-born Haroon Rashid Aswat,
believed to have masterminded the 7/7 London bombings (FOX News, “Day Side,” 29 Jul. 2005; “As 3 Nations Consulted,
Terror Suspect Eluded Arrest,” The
New York Times, 29 Jul. 2005);
MI5 (“Al Qaeda
may have infiltrated British Security Service,” FOX News, 1 Aug. 2009);
which appointed adviser on combating extremism and terrorism the Tunisian
immigrant Mohamed Ali Harrath, co-founder of the
Tunisian Islamic Front, a fundamentalist organisation advocating the
establishment of an Islamic state in Tunisia and on an Interpol list for
terrorism-related offences (“Sack Mohamed Ali Harrath,
Scotland Yard told,” The Times,
16 Dec. 2008; “Muslim Channel chief held over terror allegations,”
The Times, 26 Jan. 2010);
(“Territorial Army infiltrated by Al-Qaeda,” The Sunday Times, 17 Oct. 2004).
facts on the ground show that in spite of Labour’s cooperation with
Islamic extremists the threat of Islamic terrorism after 7 July 2005 was
rising, not falling:
In April 2009, a terrorist plot
to bomb Easter shoppers in Manchester was uncovered (Daily Telegraph, 9 Apr. 2009).
In December 2009, Scotland Yard
warned London businesses that “Mumbai is coming to London,” in reference
to the November 2008 terror attacks on the Indian city of Mumbai
(“Police expect Mumbai-style attack on City,” The Sunday Times, 20 Dec. 2009).
In September 2010, plans to
carry out co-ordinated terrorist attacks on London and other European capitals
were uncovered by intelligence agencies (“Terror plot against Britain
thwarted by drone strike,” Daily
Telegraph, 28 Sept. 2010).
In 2011, plans for further
attacks by Muslim extremists with links to al-Qaeda aiming to unleash “another 9/11” were uncovered
(“Al-Qaeda terrorists ‘plotted suicide attacks to kill British
Telegraph, 26 Jan. 2013), etc.
Labour and foreign policy
The Labour Party has long made it clear
that its foreign policy is intended to be “a logical extension of our
work at home” (Labour Party manifesto 1983).
What Labour has failed to disclose to its
members and supporters is that, like its domestic policy, its foreign
policy has always been shaped by leading Fabian Society members operating
within the party, such as Leonard Woolf, Kenneth Younger, John Strachey and Denis Healey (Fielding, p. 5).
Unsurprisingly, Labour’s foreign
policy has followed the established Fabian pattern leading to a New World
Order, World Government and a Socialist World State, all projects
representing international money interests.
In 1939, Philip Noel-Baker of
the Labour Party National Executive Committee, who later joined the Fabian
International Bureau and served as Secretary for Commonwealth Relations,
Party will not abandon, now or ever, the vision of a new world order” (Labour
Party Annual Conference Report, 1939).
In addition to designing Labour’s
foreign policy, these Fabian elements occupied the appropriate positions in
the Labour apparatus that enabled them to pursue their nefarious agendas.
Working in close collaboration with fellow Fabians across the Atlantic and
backed by financial interests operating within the US State Department
(e.g., the Fabian Socialist Rockefellers), they set up a web of
international organisations working for the establishment of a Fabian
Socialist New World Order.
These organisations included the League of
Nations and its successor, the United Nations (UN), the North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation (NATO), the Socialist International, the Bilderberg Group and
the European Union (originally European Coal and Steel Community).
Nations. As admitted by Fabian Executive member and Chairman of the
Fabian International Bureau Denis Healey, the main objective of the 1945-51
Attlee Government had been the conversion of the
United Nations into “some form of world government,” which was
to be achieved “by a steady strengthening in both the scope
and the authority of the United Nations” (Healey, 1963, pp. 1, 3).
This was reiterated in Labour Party
manifestos like that of 1964 which stated:
“For us world government is the final objective
and the United Nations the chosen instrument …”
Another chosen instrument of world
government was NATO. Ostensibly
meant to contain the expansion of Soviet and Chinese Communism, NATO was in
fact used by the Attlee government as a smokescreen to make deals with the
Communist regimes and promote world Socialism.
In a 1952 essay with an introduction by
Attlee, leading Fabian and Labourite (later Labour Party Chairman) Richard
“A victory for either side would be
a defeat for socialism. We are members of the Atlantic Alliance (NATO); but
this does not mean that we are enemies of every Communist revolution”
(Griffin, p. 173).
The Socialist International is another creature (and creation) of
the Fabian Society working in collaboration with the Labour Party for the
establishment of world government. At the 2-4 June 1962 Oslo Conference, the
SI declared that:
“The ultimate objective of the parties of the
Socialist International is nothing less than world government. As a first step towards it, they seek to strengthen
the United Nations so that it may become more and more effective
Among the more shadowy
organisations concerned with world government is the Bilderberg Group. The Group is a typical Fabian organisation
set up in 1954 by leading Fabians Joseph Retinger (a London-based Polish
Socialist belonging to Fabian Society circles), Hugh Gaitskell and Denis
Healey in collaboration with David and Nelson Rockefeller and other leading
Council on Foreign Relations officials. Healey was a member of the Bilderberg
Steering Committee from inception (Callaghan pp. 203-4; de Villemarest,
2004, vol. 2, p. 15; Healey, 2006, pp. 195-6; Rockefeller, p. 411).
The Bilderberg Group, the
European Movement and the Action Committee for a United States of Europe
(ACUSE) – founded by French left-winger Jean Monnet – were the key organisations campaigning for a united Europe
in the 1940s and 50s (Aldrich, 216), which led to the establishment of
the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) that later became the European Union.
Other leading Labourites campaigning
for a united or federated Europe included John Hynd;
Ernest Bevin, the architect of the Western European Union; and Clement
Attlee himself, who
in 1952 launched the Socialist Union (SU) which campaigned for a
Socialism-based European federation.
Labour’s efforts at building
Socialism at home and in Europe were generously remunerated by
Rockefeller-associated interests operating through the US State and
Treasury Departments and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Thus, in
1947 alone (under PM Attlee), Labour drew over $2.75 billion from US funds
in addition to one-quarter billion dollars from the IMF (Martin, p. 77).
Similarly, in 1969, Labour’s Wilson
Government (with Roy Jenkins as Chancellor) raised $4 billion, 1 billion of
which came from the Rockefeller-controlled IMF (Martin, p. 109).
Unsurprisingly, when Labour
spoke of a united Europe, it meant a Socialist
Europe and this is the key to the correct understanding of the
Party’s ambiguity towards joining the European Community a.k.a. Common
As pointed out by Churchill, the Labour
Party Conference of 1947 had declared:
“If the United States of Europe is indeed to
succeed and to benefit its peoples, it can only fully succeed if all the
countries of Western Europe commit themselves, as our electors committed
themselves in 1945, to the belief that Socialism is the hope of us all”
Lord Salter, a former member of the Fabian
Society and Labour supporter, similarly noted Labour’s concern that
joining non-Socialist Western European countries (like Christian Democratic
West Germany and Gaullist Republican France) would be detrimental to the
development of Socialism in Britain (Salter, p. 311; cf. Martin, p. 96).
Nevertheless, once initial opposition had
been overcome, Labourites like Harold Wilson were more than happy to lead
Britain’s entry effort (Dinan, p. 78) and,
four years after Britain’s 1973 accession, Roy Jenkins who had led
the “Britain in Europe” campaign, became President of the
In 1976, amidst soaring oil prices plunging
the world economy into recession, Britain was plagued by high unemployment
and rising inflation made worse by extortionate contributions to the
European Community’s Common Agricultural Policy, lavish public and
foreign aid spending and a slumping pound. The Labour Party once again
turned to its long-standing paymasters: Denis Healey, now Labour
Chancellor, asked the Rockefeller-controlled IMF for a humiliating bailout of $4 billion (£2.3 billion)
(Stone-Lee, 2005). Moreover, he placed
Britain’s economy under IMF supervision.
Tellingly, in 1977, Healey became chairman
of the Interim Committee of the IMF Board of Governors, a post he held
until 1979. At the same time, Roy Jenkins was President of the European
Commission while their friend and collaborator Robert McNamara was head of
the World Bank.
All three were connected with international
financial interests, in particular, with the Rockefeller Group, either
directly or through organisations like the Trilateral Commission and the
Bilderberg Group, in which David Rockefeller was a leading element. In
addition, from 1973, Rockefeller was a member (later chairman) of the US
Advisory Committee on Reform of the International Monetary System.
It comes as no surprise then, that under
Roy Jenkins’ presidency, the European Commission in 1979 established
the European Monetary System (EMS) which linked the currencies of most EC
countries. Moreover, towards the end of Jenkins’ presidency, in January
1981, the European Commission proposed closer co-operation between EMS
central banks and the US Federal Reserve System.
The project, known as “Fecomisation,” after FECOM (French for European
Monetary Co-operation Fund or EMCF), was abandoned after being criticised
for its potential to put control over national money supply in the hands of
a supranational organisation (Ungerer, p. 176).
The fact that it had been proposed in the first place, however, exposes the
European project’s true objective.
The centralisation of international finance
and subordination of the world’s economies to an international
authority had long been the flagship of left-wing financial interests with
close links to the Milner Group, the Fabian Society and the Labour Party.
Already in the early 1920s, former president of the Rockefeller-controlled
National City Bank of New York, Frank A. Vanderlip, had laid out details of a plan for a world bank with branches in all countries (“Vanderlip
Gives Details Of Plan For World Bank,” New York Times, 13 Nov. 1921).
At the same time, the Rockefellers were
bankrolling the Fabian Society’s London School of Economics
(Rockefeller, p. 81), where current and future Labour ideologues and
policy-makers studied and taught. As we have just seen, the Rockefellers
later came to bankroll the Labour Party itself, though not, of course, for
nothing. The price was national indebtedness to international organisations
like the IMF and subordination to the money interests behind them.
Labour and the Islamisation
indebtedness to oil interests like the Rockefellers and their Arab partners
– borrowing from OPEC countries had been another brainchild of Labour
Chancellor Denis Healey (Healey, 2006, pp. 423-6) – explains its
behaviour towards Muslims, Islam, and Islamisation.
On 27 July 2005, only 20 days
after the 7/7 London bombings and after meeting with the Spanish and
Turkish leaders in Downing Street, Labour PM Tony Blair welcomed Spanish
President Jose Luis Zapatero’s plan for an
Alliance of Civilisations (AoC) aiming to
“combat terrorism” by bringing Christian and Muslim countries
together and stressed the particular involvement of Turkey in the project
(“Blair welcomes ‘alliance of civilisations’ plan,”
Guardian, 27 Jul. 2005).
It will be recalled that in
January 2006, quoting the Sufi Sheikh Ba,
Ambassador Frances Guy declared that bringing Turkey into the European
Union was a way of “binding” the two religions together to
prove that there was no clash of civilisations (Frances Guy,
“Policies of the West towards the Muslim World,” Speech to Chevening Scholars, Birmingham, 27 Jan. 2006).
In November 2007, at the
Opening Ceremony at the Bruges Campus, College of Europe, Bruges, Belgium,
Labour Foreign Secretary David Miliband spoke in favour of
“unbreakable ties” with Europe’s Muslim neighbour
countries and inclusion of Turkey, the Middle East and North Africa in
Europe. Ominously, he stressed the need of developing shared institutions to overcome religious and
cultural divides between Europe and Muslim countries (“EU
‘should expand beyond Europe’”, BBC News, 15 Nov. 2007).
Labour’s Yugoslavia War
In 1999, a NATO coalition led by
left-wing leaders Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroeder
(Germany’s Socialist Democrat leader) waged war on Yugoslavia under
the false pretext of “genocide” against Kosovo’s ethnic
Albanian Muslims (in reality, there had been no genocide - the ethnic
Albanian population had fled over the border to Albania - and, as pointed
out by China, the NATO campaign was really intended to bring the whole of
Europe under US-British control).
The irony is that while US and British forces were “saving” Kosovo Muslims
from the Serbs, Muslim terrorist organisations like Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda were
planning attacks on US and British targets. These plans – involving
attacks on the New York Trade Center and the
Pentagon – were carried out on 7 Nov 2001 and led to the next two
Labour’s Afghanistan War
In 2001, the USA
under President George W. Bush began a military operation in Afghanistan to
hunt down Osama bin Laden and remove the Taliban regime which was
As regime change in Afghanistan
suited Labour’s global strategy, Tony Blair’s government joined
the US campaign against the Taliban. However, as in the case of Yugoslavia,
the Labour Government didn’t tell the British people the whole truth
The Labour Government
didn’t tell the people that the Taliban had been created by the
British Intelligence Services in collaboration with the CIA and
Pakistan’s ISI, in the first place – as admitted by former
Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf
in his book In the Line of Fire,
What the Labour
Government also didn’t tell the British people was that Osama bin
Laden himself had been sponsored by the same groups and that the roots of
Islamic extremism were to be found not in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan,
where the Taliban has its bases and masterminds, and Saudi Arabia, from
where Islamic extremists get financial support (the 9/11 attackers,
including Osama bin Laden, were not from Afghanistan, but from Saudi Arabia
and other Middle Eastern Arab states).
fact that was being concealed by the Labour regime is that the alternative
government in Afghanistan aims to establish an Islamic republic that would
be similar or identical to the Taliban State and so continue to provide a
launching pad for anti-British and anti-Western extremism.
Labour’s Iraq War
In 2003, Britain and America
invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein’s regime on the pretext that it
had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which
could reach Britain “within 45 minutes”. In fact, the
“evidence” for WMDs turned out to
have existed only in Tony Blair’s imagination.
It is true that Saddam Hussein
was a bloodthirsty tyrant who had the blood of thousands of innocent people
on his hands and everybody agrees that his removal was a good thing. However,
several serious concerns about the war remain.
1. The war was waged on false
2. The true reasons behind the
removal of Saddam Hussein were US-British oil interests and expansionist ambitions
in the region which were opposed by Saddam and his regime.
3. The US and British
leadership completely failed to come up with a viable plan for the
reconstruction of Iraq after
Saddam’s removal. This has facilitated the spread of extremism in Iraq
and has enabled Iran to expand its influence, while weakening
Britain’s own position, in the region.
4. Britain’s military
intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq has been a complete failure for two
reasons. First, these countries have traditional Muslim populations that do
not want to live according to Western “democratic values”.
Second, Afghanistan and Iraq are the wrong targets. The correct targets are
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran. While secondary elements in the global
terrorist network (like Afghanistan) are being targeted for reasons of
political expediency and propaganda, the primary elements – Pakistan
and Saudi Arabia – are treated as untouchable and above international
law, and even as “friends and allies in the fight against
The result of the Yugoslavia,
Afghanistan and Iraq Wars is that there has been no improvement in the
security of the British people. On the contrary, while British troops have
been laying down their lives in foreign countries, a new generation of
Islamic extremists has been raised on British soil, as shown by the 7 July
2005 attacks on London’s transport network and other atrocities
planned and attempted since (see above).
usual, it is not the political leaders who are affected by Islamic
terrorism, but innocent ordinary people. Indeed, the Islamist-Establishment
conspiracy against the common people is confirmed by the fact that to date
no Western leaders have been targeted by Islamist terrorists even though it
would be well within the means of well-trained and well-funded professional
assassins to do so.
Labour and genocide
Labour’s connections with genocidal ideologies go back to its Marxist roots. Karl
Marx’s concept of Socialist revolution revolved on the division of
society into two classes, the “revolutionary” and the
“reactionary,” of which the latter was to be physically
eliminated in order to give way to those who were “fit” for the
new Socialist world order. Marx wrote:
“The present generation is
like the Jews, whom Moses led through the wilderness. It has not only a new
world to conquer, it must go under, in order to make room for the men who
are fit for a new world” (Class
Struggles in France, 1850, p. 114).
Marx’s collaborator Engels, who
became a leading Marxist ideologist in his own right, went even further,
declaring that whole nations – deemed “reactionary”
– were destined to perish in a future
Socialist world war and this would be a “step forward” (“The Magyar Struggle,” 13 Jan. 1849, MECW, vol. 8, p. 227).
Marxist regime led by Lenin and Trotsky initiated a programme of mass
killings – known as “The Red Terror” – as soon as it
seized power in 1917. Lenin’s successor Stalin executed 681,692
persons for “anti-Soviet activities” in 1937-38 (one year) alone (Pipes, 2001, p. 66)
and the total
number of its victims has been estimated at between 20
million (Conquest, 1991) and
million (Rummel, 1990).
Among the Labour Party’s
Fabian masterminds were many Marxists and, in particular, Stalinists. As
already noted, Fabian Society leaders Sidney and Beatrice Webb were great
admirers of Lenin and Stalin. Another Fabian leader, Bernard Shaw,
repeatedly praised the Soviet regime and described Stalin as a “good
Inevitably, there was no
shortage of Stalinists among leading Labourites, many of whom were Fabians.
Some, like D N Pritt were so rabidly pro-Stalin
that they had to be expelled from the party. Stafford Cripps (Beatrice
Webb’s millionaire nephew) was also expelled, but was appointed
ambassador to Moscow by Churchill and rejoined the Labour Party as
President of the Board of Trade after the war.
Labour’s proximity to
Stalinist (and more generally Communist) Russia is evident from the fact
that it looked to that country as a social and economic model for Britain
well into the 1960s, notably under Harold Wilson (a former Fabian Society
Chairman) and his Fabian advisers like Thomas Balogh
198-200). The party has retained a scattering of
Stalinists, e.g., Jack Straw, to the present day.
However, one of Labour’s
darkest – and best-kept – secrets is its collaboration in the
systematic murder of between five and six
German men, women and children who perished as a result of deportation,
mistreatment and starvation at the hands of Allied authorities between 1944
and 1950 (de Zayas, p. 111; Bacque,
pp. 119, 204; Dietrich, pp. 107-8, 140-1).
One of the driving forces behind this genocide
was US Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr.,
who devised a plan based on the belief that all Germans deserved to be
punished and entailed the dismemberment and de-industrialisation of
Plan was backed by US President Franklin D Roosevelt who said:
“We have got to be tough
with Germany and I mean the German people, not just the Nazis” (Morgenthau, 1944).
Although Churchill pointed out that the
plan would starve the Germans, he eventually agreed to it (Kimball, pp.
38-40). The deportation and starvation of millions of Germans went ahead in
1944 under the Churchill-Attlee Coalition Government and was carried on
from 1945 to 1950 under Attlee’s Labour Government.
Labour’s subsequent policies of
genocide revolved around immigration and race relations (Shell, 2011). The
party leadership and the Fabian elements behind it had long been
instigating anti-colonial agitation in the Colonies.
Already in the 1930s, Frank Horrabin who later became Chairman of the Fabian
Society’s Colonial Bureau, which operated in
close collaboration with the Labour Party had declared:
“Truly, the black
inhabitants of Earth have a long and fearful score to pay off against their
white brethren” (Horrabin, p. 66).
In the early 1950s, Labour called for a
“world uprising of colonial peoples against the old
imperialism” (Labour Party Annual Conference, 1953).
As Labour legislation facilitated
large-scale immigration of non-whites from Commonwealth countries into
Britain, the Labour Party increasingly sided with the newcomers against
Britain’s indigenous population.
By the 1980s, under the pretext of
“race equality,” Labour policy aimed to change what it had
identified as the “power relations between white and black
people” in favour of the non-white immigrant population, as evident
from A Policy for Equality: Race (ILEA,
1983) and other Labour programmatic papers.
As already noted, Camden Council’s
1978 employment policy stated:
“If two people of equal
ability but of different colour apply for a job, we will pick the coloured
person because coloured people are so underrepresented at the moment”
(Joppke, pp. 230-1).
This shift of power relations in favour of
the non-white immigrant population was accelerated by the policy of mass
immigration devised by the Blair-Brown Labour Government of 1997-2010.
Ostensibly intended “to make Britain more multicultural,” the
policy had clear racial and genocidal implications: making a population
more multicultural through mass immigration amounts to making it
multiethnic or multiracial; and this amounts to the suppression of one ethnic
or racial group in favour of another, which comes very close to the
accepted definition of genocide.
The UN Resolution 96 (I), The Crime of
Genocide, 11 December 1946, states:
“Genocide is a denial of the right of existence
of entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right to live of
individual human beings …
The General Assembly, therefore, Affirms, that genocide is a crime under
international law … for the commission of which principals and
accomplices – whether private individuals, public officials or
statesmen, and whether the crime is committed on religious, racial,
political or any other grounds – are punishable.”
The impact of
Labour’s policy of mass immigration on Britain’s indigenous
population is obvious and beyond dispute. As admitted by Lee Jasper of the National
Assembly Against Racism:
“At the moment ethnic minorities are about 40
per cent in London … We could have a majority black Britain by the
turn of the century” (Browne, 2000).
To achieve this goal, the Labour Party has
been operating in tandem with organisations like the UN, Labour’s
chosen instrument for world government, whose head of immigration Peter
Sutherland has called for the EU to “undermine the national homogeneity”
of European states and believes that the migration of hundreds of millions
of Africans to Europe is “a good thing”.
Labour and international money
Business, industry and banking are important
sectors of the economy. A nation’s economic prosperity depends on
co-operation between these sectors and the political leadership. However,
when the public are being kept in the dark about the links between vested
business interests and politics or, worse, when business and politics
ignore democratic principles and procedures and conspire with foreign money
interests against the interests of the general public, then we have a
Policies like mass immigration resulting in
low wages and high living costs as well as the displacement of the
indigenous population and its replacement with immigrants may serve the
interests of business and its political allies. They cannot possibly serve
the interests of the majority of the people.
The question that
must be asked, therefore, is whose interests does Labour really represent?
Labour’s connections with financial
interests have been commented on by many left-wing observers from David Osler to Lee Jasper. Jasper has noted an increased impact of multinational businesses
on the Labour Party “brought in by Tony Blair” (Simpson,
Osler’s observation that a
“select coterie of businessmen – not all of them upright
– enjoyed close ties to the Labour Party” even under Harold
Wilson (Osler, p. 12), comes closer to the truth.
The fact is that Labour has been close to business interests from the time
of Stafford Cripps, Beatrice Webb’s millionaire nephew; Hugh
Gaitskell and Denis Healey, co-founders of the Bilderberg Group with the
Rockefellers (see above); and, before that, to its Fabian founders like
Bernard Shaw and the Webbs, who enjoyed close
ties to the Astors, the Balfours,
the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers.
And as all the above Labourites, from the Webbs to Wilson, were Fabian Society members, a direct
link between Labour, the Fabian Society and international money interests
can be established.
To be sure, the Conservatives have not been
without their own connections to high finance. For example, Oliver Letwin has been a long-time banker with N M Rothschild
(Wolf, 1988) as well as leading Conservative policy adviser. Mr Letwin is also a former member of the Fabian Society.
Such connections may help explain the fact
that the Tory Party has been steadily drifting to the left (Hitchens, 2006). However, unlike Labour,
the Tories still have a core – albeit a dwindling one – of true
conservatives, of men and women genuinely concerned with the preservation
of their country, its society and culture and who cherish its traditional
By contrast, the Labour Party – an
organisation identical with the Fabian Society (at least at leadership
level) – has come to stand for mass immigration, multiculturalism and
Islamisation, that is, for the deliberate and
systematic transformation of British society and culture beyond recognition
in line with Fabian ideology. Moreover, such policies are clearly in
harmony with the objectives of left-wing international money interests.
The evidence speaks for itself. Leading
Fabian Socialist Lord Mandelson, former EU Trade Commissioner, is not only
the architect of New Labour, but also a close friend of the Rothschilds and
other international plutocrats. In January 2011, just seven months after
leaving office as First Secretary of State, Mandelson was introduced to the
global investment bank Lazard Ltd by his friend Nat Rothschild who had been
a banker there in the 1990s (Moore, 2012).
Lazard have been close associates of
Rothschild and Rockefeller interests since the early 1900s and have a
history of generous support for leading Socialists around the globe,
including US President Barack Obama. Mandelson is also the president of the
international Socialist think-tank Policy Network established in 1999 by US
President Bill Clinton, Prime Minister Tony Blair and German Chancellor
Mandelson’s disciple Tony Blair has equally
enjoyed close links to the same clique. While his close collaboration with
Clinton in the War against Serbia links him with George Soros, a long-time
Rothschild-associate and supporter of Clinton’s Democratic Party who
had mining and other interests in the region, Blair’s support for the
Iraq War – generally acknowledged to have been about control of oil
deposits – clearly ranks him among the puppets of international oil
Indeed, we find that the main interests
controlling oil in post-war Iraq are the Rockefellers (Exxon, Chevron), the
Rothschilds (Shell, Genel)
and their associates like Communist China.
Only six months after leaving office in
2007, Blair took on a post as adviser to J P Morgan (part of the
Rockefellers’ JPMorgan Chase bank), whose
International Advisory Council he currently chairs. Fellow Council members include:
long-time Rockefeller associates Henry Kissinger and Kofi
Annan; Khalid Al-Falih, President and CEO of Saudi Aramco
(a former Rockefeller-Saudi operation); and Gao
Xi-Qing, Vice-Chairman, President and Chief Investment Officer of Communist
China’s state-owned wealth fund China Investment Corporation.
As neither Blair nor Mandelson can be
supposed to have suddenly discovered an ideological affinity with the above
interests, it is safe to say that their agenda has always been in harmony
with that of said interests.
Indeed, already in 1993, that is, before
becoming Labour Leader and Prime Minister, Blair had joined the World
Economic Forum’s (a Rockefeller-dominated organisation) Global
Leaders of Tomorrow group whose members were expected to promote the WEF’s agendas. In other words, we elected a
Rockefeller front man for Prime Minister.
What becomes clear is that Labour’s
policies can only be fully understood when examined against the background
of its overarching objective of establishing a New World Order ruled by a
Socialist World Government backed (and controlled) by a financial elite
operating from behind the scenes (the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds
and their associates).
The three tiers of this power structure are
made up of (1) an international money elite controlling natural resources
like oil, banks and “philanthropic” foundations, followed by
(2) “think-tanks” like the Fabian Society, educational and
academic institutions like the London School of Economics (LSE) and the
University of Oxford, and media outlets like The Times, Guardian,
etc., playing key roles in public policy making and opinion forming
processes, followed by (3) left-wing political organisations like the Labour
1. International Elite
(vested interests controlling
banks and foundations)
2. Think-tanks, academic institutions and media outlets
sponsored, owned or controlled by the above
Society, LSE, Oxford University, etc., )
3. Labour Party
(and all other political
dominated or controlled by the above)
Table 1. The international elite’s power
Labour’s overarching objective is evident
from its election manifestos and annual conference reports calling in
unambiguous terms for a “New World Order” (1939), a
“Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain” (1945), a
“Socialist Europe” (1975), “a (Socialist) World
Government” (1964), etc.
In sum, all this exposes the Labour Party
as an organisation representing the interests of a
left-wing international elite which has bankrolled Labour governments since
the 1940s and 60s through outfits like the IMF (see above).
(This article is based on Chapter
3, The Labour Party, of The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy by Ioan
The Labour Party, a puppet of the Fabian
Richard J., “OSS, CIA and European Unity: The American Committee on
United Europe, 1948-60,” International
History Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, London, Nov. 1995; also in Diplomacy & Statecraft, Vol. 8,
No. 1, London, March 1997, pp. 184-227.
Bacque, James, Crimes and Mercies:
The Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation 1944-1950, London,
Banton, Michael, Promoting racial harmony, Cambridge,
Anthony, “The last days of a white world,” Observer, 3 Sept. 2000.
Callaghan, John, The Labour Party and Foreign Policy: A
History, Abingdon, Oxon, 2007.
Churchill, Winston, in
“Schuman Plan,” House of Commons
Debate, 27 June 1950, vol. 476 c2144.
Cole, Margaret, The Story of Fabian Socialism,
Villemarest, Pierre, Facts &
Chronicles Denied To The Public, vols. 1 & 2, 2003; English trans.
Slough, Berkshire, 2004.
Alfred-Maurice, A Terrible Revenge:
The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans, 1944-1950, New York,
Dietrich, John, The Morgenthau
Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy, New York, NY, 2002.
Dinan, Desmond, Ever Closer Union? An Introduction to
the European Community, Basingstoke, 1994.
Drury, Ian, “I read
the Koran every day, says former prime minister Tony Blair who claims it
keeps him ‘faith-literate’”, Daily Mail, 13 June 2011.
Fielding, Rodney, “A
socialist foreign policy?”, Fabian Tract No. 401, London, 1970.
Griffin, G. Edward, The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the
United Nations, Belmont, MA, 1964.
“A Labour Britain and the World,” Fabian Tract No. 352, London, 1963.
The Time of My Life, London,
Peter, “Cameron a supporter of New Labour?”,
Mail Online, Blog
entry, 1 March 2006.
J. F., Plebs, March, 1932, quoted
in Padmore, George, “’Left’
Imperialism and the Negro Toilers,” Labour Monthly, vol. 14, no. 5, May 1932.
Christian, Immigration and the
Nation-State: The United States, Germany and Great Britain, New York,
F., Swords or Ploughshares? The Morgenthau Plan for Defeated Nazi Germany, New
York, NY, 1976.
Russell, Anti-Racism: A Mania Exposed, London,
MacDonogh, Giles, After the Reich: From the Liberation of
Vienna to the Berlin Airlift, London, 2007.
Martin, Rose, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism
in the U.S.A., Chicago, IL, 1966.
“Mandelson leads Lazard international arm,” Financial Times, 18 Nov. 2012.
Morgenthau, Henry, Jr., Morgenthau Memorandum of
Conversation With Roosevelt, 19 Aug. 1944, Presidential Diaries, Morgenthau Papers, Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Hyde
Park, NY, pp. 1386-88, in Kimball, Swords or Ploughshares?, p. 96.
David, Labour Party Plc: New Labour
As A Party Of Business, Edinburgh, 2002.
Alison, The New Frontiers of Jihad:
Radical Islam in Europe, London, 2008.
Patterson, Sheila, Immigration and Race Relations in
Britain 1960-1967, London, 1969.
Pease, Edward, R., History of the Fabian Society: The
Origins of English Socialism, New York, NY, 1916.
Pugh, Patricia, Educate, Agitate, Organize:
100 Years of Fabian Socialism, London, 1984.
Conspiracy: How an international elite is taking over and destroying
Europe, America and the World, Richmond, 2012.
John, Tony Blair, Prime Minister,
Rockefeller, David, Memoirs, New York, NY, 2002.
Arthur, Memoirs of a Public Servant,
“Progressive Politics: Being Rid of The English,” September
Ollie, “1975 economic fears are laid bare,” BBC News, 29 Dec. 2005.
Sutherland, Peter, “A constructive attitude towards migration
is a moral issue,” address to the International Eucharistic Congress,
Dublin, 15 Jun. 2012.
Sutherland, Peter, in Select Committee on the European Union, House of Lords,
“Inquiry on Global Approach to Migration and Mobility, Evidence
Session No. 1, Wednesday 20 June 2012, 11.25 am, Witness: Mr Peter
Sutherland, QQ 1-34”, uncorrected transcript, published 22 June 2012.
Ungerer, Horst, A Concise History of European Monetary
Integration: From EPU to EMU, Westport, CT, 1997.
“Business Books: Making history again/Review of ‘Privatising
The World’ by Oliver Letwin,” Financial Times, 18 June, 1988.
“Socialism and Culture,” Fabian
Tract No. 331, London, 1961.
’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
If it’s Saturday, it’s the Germans again
– or why the Mail has lost
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
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,
The last days of a white world
A Webb of Lies
Socialism and Incentives
Conspiracy: How an international elite is taking over and destroying
Europe, America and the World, Richmond, 2012.
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, IL, 1966.
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, 2006.
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 London, 1999.
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.