FREE BRITAIN NOW!

 

 

THE VOICE OF TRUTH, DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM

 

 

 

Socialism exposed

 

Exposing

the

Labour

Party

 

The Fabian

Society: the

masters of

subversion

unmasked

 

Revealed: the Socialist International

 

The truth about the European Union

 

The

Fourth

British

Empire

 

The

Migration

Observatory

 

The Oxford

Martin

School

 

Unmasking

the EDL

 

 

 

Exposing the Labour Party

 

by Cassivellaunus, 6 January 2013

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

History of the Labour Party

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

In 1913, Beatrice Webb remarked that the Fabian Society and the Independent Labour Party were well on the way to controlling the policy of Britain’s Labour and Socialist movement (M. Cole, p. 167).

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

    

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Fabians’ ongoing hold on Labour

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Labour’s utter betrayal of the country

 

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

 

The Economy under Labour

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  

The Education System under Labour

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The breakdown of British society under Labour

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The rising crime wave under Labour

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Immigration under Labour

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Multiculturalism under Labour

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“Anti-racism” under Labour

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Labour regime’s cooperation with Islamic extremists

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Labour and foreign policy

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Labour and the Islamisation of Europe

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Labour’s Yugoslavia War

 

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

 

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

  

Labour’s Afghanistan War

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Labour’s Iraq War

 

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

 

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

 

1. The war was waged on false pretexts.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Labour and genocide

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Labour and international money interests

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

1. International Elite

(vested interests controlling natural resources,

banks and foundations)

2. Think-tanks, academic institutions and media outlets

sponsored, owned or controlled by the above

(the Fabian Society, LSE, Oxford University, etc., )

3. Labour Party

(and all other political organisations influenced,

dominated or controlled  by the above)

 

Table 1. The international elite’s power structure

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

See also:

 

The Labour Party, a puppet of the Fabian Society

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Articles

 

 

’Revolt on the Right’: UKIP and the Fabian Socialist

smoke-and-mirrors campaign

 

Crimea, Ukraine and the Anglo-American New World Order

 

Nelson Mandela: “President of the World” or “murderous terrorist”?

 

Diversity is Not a Catholic Value

 

If it’s Saturday, it’s the Germans again – or why the Mail has lost the plot

 

Towards a British revolution

 

Do white people have a future in South Africa?

 

Romantic Conservatives: The Inklings in Their Political Context

 

Is there a “need” for immigrants?

 

The Labour Party, a puppet of the Fabian Society

 

The truth about the Labour Party

 

The truth about the Fabian Society

 

The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy against humanity

 

Socialism’s prescient critics

 

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism

 

Britain divided by Islam, survey finds

 

Abolish this corrupt chamber – the House of Commons, that is

 

The Real Churchill

 

The last days of a white world

 

A Webb of Lies

 

Socialism and Incentives

 

 

 

 

Recommended reading

 

 

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, IL, 1966.

 

Butler, 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.

 

Courtois, Stéphane et al., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, Engl. translation, Cambridge, MA and London, 1999.

 

Williamson, Kevin, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism, Washington, DC,

2011

 

Hitchens, Peter, The Abolition of Britain: From Winston Churchill to Princess Diana, London, 2008.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Home

 

About

 

FAQs

 

Articles

 

Unite

Against

Socialism

 

Get Britain Out

 

Big Brother

Watch

 

Young Britons’

Foundation

 

Civitas

 

Bow Group

 

Traditional

Britain

Group

 

Salisbury

Review

 

This

England

 

Migration

Watch

 

Immigration Control

Platform

 

Stop

Islamisation

Of Europe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2013