25 December 2012
Socialism is falsely projected by its
sponsors, followers and supporters as a benign system aiming to raise the
living standard of all citizens through equal access to resources, etc. In particular,
it is said to be a working-class movement whose special concern is the
welfare of the working classes.
In reality, none of the current main
branches of Socialism such as Marxism (a.k.a. Communism), Social Democracy
or Fabianism were founded by working-class
The founder of Marxism, Karl Marx, was born
into a wealthy middle-class family, was employed as a journalist by liberal
financial interests, lived off his inheritance and off the fast-dwindling
fortune of his aristocratic wife and was financially supported for the rest
of his life by his friend and collaborator Friedrich Engels,
a wealthy textile magnate.
The founder of German Social Democracy,
Ferdinand Lassalle, was similarly from a
middle-class background and a lawyer by profession.
The founders of British Fabianism,
too, were middle-class and had very little contact, if any, with
Socialism and high finance
Particularly revealing are the connections
of these key figures of Socialism with financial interests.
Both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had started their journalistic careers at the Rheinische Zeitung
of Cologne, a radical paper owned by liberal financial interests (Ratiu, p. 23) and Marx was later in the pay of the New York Tribune.
owner, Horace Greeley and its editor, Charles Anderson Dana were close
collaborators of Clinton Roosevelt (Sutton, 1995, p. 45), a radical
Democrat member of the well-known Roosevelt Clan whose main areas of
interest were banking and politics.
Similarly, the founders and leaders of
British Fabian Socialism had close links to
liberal financial interests.
Fabian Society co-founder Hubert
Bland, was a bank-employee-turned-journalist who worked for the London Sunday Chronicle, a paper owned by
newspaper magnate Edward Hulton, formerly of the Manchester Guardian.
Bland’s friend Bernard Shaw was working
for the London Pall Mall Gazette,
which was edited by Rothschild associates William T Stead and Alfred (later
Lord) Milner and owned by millionaire William Waldorf (later Lord) Astor.
Shaw became a close friend of Astor’s son Waldorf and his wife Nancy,
and married Charlotte, daughter of Horace Payne-Townshend,
a wealthy Stock Exchange investor.
Shaw’s friend and fellow Fabian Society leader Sidney Webb married Beatrice,
daughter of Richard Potter, a wealthy financier with international
connections who served as chairman of the Great Western and Grand Trunk
Railways of England and Canada. Beatrice was also a close friend of
Rothschild associate and Conservative Prime Minister Arthur Balfour.
In other words, personal self-advancement
took precedence over the advancement of the working classes who were to
remain subordinated to a non-working, ruling elite
with links to financial interests.
This situation has remained unchanged
ever since as can be seen from the following examples:
Prime Minister Tony Blair, a
Fabian Society member, earns £2 million a year for his
contribution as Chairman of J P Morgan International Council
(part of the Rockefellers’ JPMorgan
Chase Bank) and has represented J P Morgan/Chase interests
in Libya and other oil-rich states. Even before becoming Labour Party Leader and Prime Minister, Blair was a
member of the World Economic Forum’s (a Rockefeller-dominated organisation) Global Leaders of Tomorrow group.
Tony Blair’s political
mentor Lord (Peter) Mandelson is employed as a senior adviser to the
Rothschild-Rockefeller-associated banking group Lazard.
leading Socialist Gerhard Schröder, a close collaborator of Blair and Mandelson, has been on the payroll of Rothschild operations like TNK-BP
and Rothschild & Cie., Paris
(Nauer, 2010), etc.
A working-class ideology?
Another revealing aspect of Socialism is
the nature and origin of its ideology of which writings like the Communist Manifesto are a case in
One of the earliest Socialistic
publications was Clinton Roosevelt’s (see above) booklet The Science of Government (1841)
which advocated a totalitarian system similar to the one suggested in Karl
Marx’s Communist Manifesto
(Sutton, 1995, p. 26).
1843, another booklet, entitled Principles
of Socialism: Manifesto of Democracy in the Nineteenth Century, was
published by a certain Frenchman of the name Victor Considerant
while Marx and Engels were working for the Paris Franco-German Annals.
booklet was reprinted in 1847 when Marx and Engels,
who were then in exile in Brussels, joined the London Communist League. In
November, the duo was commissioned by the League’s Central
Authority to compose a document presenting a statement of its beliefs and
had already produced a draft document called The Principles of Communism in October and the duo used this as
a basis for their Manifesto of the
Communist Party – which was sent to London for printing in
As shown by W. Tcherkesoff
in his Pages of Socialist History
(1902), the Manifesto is in fact
based on Victor Considerant’s Principles of Socialism and
therefore cannot be the original work of Marx and Engels
(Sutton, 1995, pp. 38-40).
The ideology presented in the Manifesto was no less dubious. It is
obvious from the text what the main concerns of its authors were. They
speak of large, centrally-organised and -controlled industrial production,
of centrally-controlled credit, of armies of industrial workers, of
centralisation of means of communication and transport, etc.
It is important to note that none of the
above were working-class objectives. Marx and Engels themselves in the same Manifesto tell us that the farmers, artisans and lower
middle classes were “conservative,” even
“reactionary,” seeking to “turn back the wheel of
As the authors admit, the
workers themselves, Socialism’s supposed “revolutionary”
class, were totally opposed to mechanisation and industrialisation, “smashing machinery,”
“setting factories ablaze” and “seeking to restore the vanished status of the
workman of the Middle Ages” (Communist
Manifesto, MECW, vol. 6, p.
In contrast, the declared goals of
Socialism were quite obviously identical to those of the big industrial,
banking and business interests. Like the Manifesto, Marx’s work Capital concerns itself with the establishment of a planned and
efficient method of production in which large-scale labour
was to be subordinated to a directing authority (Priestland,
Who wanted armies of industrial workers, if
not the big industrial interests? Who wanted the centralisation of banking,
if not the big banking interests? Who wanted the centralisation of
transport, if not the big railway and shipping magnates?
Socialism – the credo of international money
While we have no hard proof that Marx and Engels consciously promoted the interests of big
industry, business and finance, they must have been aware that what they
were proposing coincided with the aims of those very interests.
At any rate, the links between leading
Socialists and industrial interests are indisputable. As already noted, Engels was a textile manufacturer and so was Gustav
von Mevissen, the co-founder of the Rheinische Zeitung.Other textile manufacturers involved
with Socialistic movements were John Bright and Richard Cobden (who also
held substantial railway interests in America).
Leading figures aiming to monopolise gold and diamond mining, steel, oil,
railways and banking, as well as promoting large-scale industrial
production and supporting various liberal and radical causes, included the Rothschilds, Andrew Carnegie, the Rockefellers, John
Pierpont Morgan, Frederick Taylor and Henry Ford.
On their part, leading Socialists from the Fabian leadership to Lenin advocated policies that can
only be described as large-scale state capitalism. Already in September 1917, Lenin had declared that
State Capitalism was “a step towards socialism.” In April 1918,
he reiterated his claim, announcing that “state capitalism is something centralised, calculated, controlled and socialised, and that is exactly what we lack … if
in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism in Russia, that
would be a victory”
(“Session of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee,” 29
Apr. 1918, LCW, vol. 27, pp.
his booklet The State and Revolution,
Lenin explains exactly what he meant by “State Capitalism.” In
the “first phase” of Communist society, he declared,
All citizens are transformed into hired employees of
the state, which is made up of the armed workers. All citizens become
employees and workers of one national state “syndicate.”
The idea of government by “armed
workers,” of course, was as much a lie as the myth of
“equality” (see below) and was cynically used by Socialist
parties to win workers’ support for the Socialist state.
In reality, no Socialist state has ever
been a state consisting of “armed workers.” On the contrary,
the Socialist power structure has always been as follows:
1. The State made up of a non-working
ruling elite living in relative luxury.
2. A relatively well-off administrative
bureaucracy supporting the State.
3. A standing army of which the higher
ranks enjoyed certain social and economic privileges, while the rank and
file were often employed as unpaid workers in construction work and other
4. The working class proper (industrial
workers, agricultural labourers, etc.), toiling for the benefit of the
State and, with some exceptions, living in relative poverty.
In a telling move, Lenin
introduced the methods of mass production designed by Frederick Taylor and
Henry Ford to extract the maximum output from the workers for the benefit
of large-scale industrialists, that were in vogue
at the time in Liberal Capitalist America. Taylor had written that
“In the past, Man has been first. In the future the system must be
first,” which perfectly fitted the Communists’ own philosophy.
Taylor had also influenced
Henry Ford, of Ford Motor Company. In addition to being a large-scale
Capitalist manufacturer, Ford was a pro-Bolshevik with links to the American
League to Aid and Cooperate with Russia, a Wall Street outfit whose
Progressive vice-president Frederick C. Howe had authored Confessions of a Monopolist (1906)
in which he proposed methods by which monopolists could control society
(Sutton, 1974, pp. 19, 154).
It follows that Socialism is
simply a form of repressive State Capitalism in which the State, that is,
the ruling political clique, owns and controls everything while the rest of
the population toils for the State in the vain hope that things might
“get better” some day.
Not surprisingly, the same
financial interests have been bankrolling Socialist projects ever since.
For example, the Rothschilds and Rockefellers
funded the Fabian Society’s London School of Economics (LSE) –
established for the express purpose of advancing the Society’s
objects – from the early 1900s, as well as financing other
Fabian-influenced or -controlled universities like Harvard (which
interlocked with the Rockefeller Foundation). The associated Ford and
Carnegie interests bankrolled similar educational establishments, etc.
It must be noted that the same interests
also bankrolled Socialist revolution. For example, Rothschild agent Jacob
Schiff of the banking house Kuhn, Loeb, played a key role in the promotion
of revolutionary propaganda among Russia’s armed forces, in providing
funds for armed groups in Russia and in providing a loan to Alexander Kerensky’s Socialist government in the wake of
the February 1917 revolution (Encyclopaedia
Judaica, vol. 14, p. 961). The Rothschilds themselves arranged a loan for the Kerensky government (Ferguson, p. 448) which shows that
Russia’s new Socialist regime – unlike that of the deposed Tsar
– was agreeable to them.
What is essential to
understand at this point is that the support financial interests have
provided to Socialist causes has not been motivated solely by a desire to
gain influence and power, or for purely “philanthropic”
reasons, but also by ideological conviction.
Rockefellers are a case in point. J. D. Rockefeller Jr.’s
eldest son, J. D. Rockefeller 3rd, authored The Second American Revolution (1973) in which he advocated
collectivism under the guise of “cautious conservatism” and
“the public good” (Sutton, 1974, pp. 176-7). His brothers
Nelson, Winthrop, Laurance and David all attended
the Fabian Socialist Lincoln School of New York, which was founded by their
father. Predictably enough, Nelson took to quoting from a copy of Das Kapital
which he carried around (Morris, p. 340 in Collier, p. 262), while David
wrote a senior thesis on Fabian Socialism at Harvard in 1936, studied at
the Fabian LSE (Rockefeller, pp. 75, 81) and – like his brother
Nelson – acquired a reputation for backing left-wing projects.
The Rockefellers, therefore,
may be safely identified as Fabian Socialists. Should the question arise as
to why Fabian Socialists like the Rockefellers are masquerading as
“Republicans”, i.e., as conservatives, the answer is simple
enough. As explained by Nelson Rockefeller himself, the conservative guise
allows them to pursue left-wing agendas without arousing the suspicion of
conservative business (Williams, p. 13 in Martin, p. 407) which might
otherwise reject and oppose their policies.
Similarly, with rare
exceptions like Lord Victor Rothschild who was a member of Britain’s
(Socialist) Labour Party, the Rothschilds
have been no overt supporters of Socialism. However, they have a long
tradition of belonging to the political Left. In Britain, they were
supporters of the centre-left Liberal Party throughout the 1800s, while in
America, Rothschild representative August Belmont Sr. was chairman of the
Democratic Party (Encyclopaedia Judaica,
vol. 14, p. 342).
Currently, the Rothschilds are discreetly supporting policies aiming
to “reform” or otherwise “improve” capitalism. This
trend is perhaps best exemplified by Lynn Forester, wife of Evelyn de Rothschild, personal friend of
David Rockefeller, as well as director and CEO of E L Rothschild Ltd and
supporter of the Democratic Party, who has come up with the ingenious idea
of “rehabilitating” capitalism
(Ashton, 2012). Not any capitalism, of course, but one
called “inclusive capitalism.”
Needless to say, all such efforts can only
serve to push the entire political system to the left, that is, in the
direction of Socialism, while claiming to promote capitalism.
That this leftward drive is intentional
becomes clear from the involvement of leading Socialists like Tony Blair,
Peter Mandelson and Gerhard Schröder
in projects like Policy Network, a global operation promoting World
for others” or equality for the masses but not for the ruling classes
In addition to political
dissimulation (an established Fabian Socialist tactic) as practised by leading corporate interests like the
Rockefellers, there is another key factor often causing even the most
inquisitive student of Socialism to overlook or ignore the obvious links
between large corporations and the promotion of Socialism, namely, the apparent
contradiction between the unique degree of wealth, influence and power held
by corporate leaders and traditional Socialist tenets like
“equality,” “fair distribution of resources,” etc.
This paradox is easily
understood, however, if we look at the history of Socialism and realise that its leaders were never serious about being
in any way “equal” to the masses.
The inconvenient truth is
that the founding fathers of Socialism, from Marx and Lassalle
to Bernard Shaw, all considered themselves entitled, by dint of their
intellectual prowess and other supposed markers of
“superiority,” to a better lot than the rank and file whose
sole purpose was to submit and obey. For example, the expenditure of
Marx’s household was well above that of a large working-class family
– he even had enough spare cash to gamble on the Stock Exchange of
which his friend and supporter Engels was a
leading member – while Lassalle and Shaw
were positively wealthy.
Nor is it just their
lifestyles which expose their true stand. Their statements, too, make it
very clear that the upper echelons of Socialism had no intention to share
in the “equality” they preached.
Marx, for example, completely
dismissed Socialist ideas like “equal right” and “fair
distribution” as “obsolete verbal rubbish.” As he
explained, even a system where each received an equal quantity of products
in return for an equal quantity of labour would
lead to inequality: on account of the inherent
inequality of individuals, that is, one man being stronger or weaker than
another (it may be added, in Marx’s case, one being cleverer and more
manipulative than another), etc., “one will in fact receive more than
another, one will be richer than another, and so on” (“Critique
of the Gotha Programme,”
1875, MESW, vol. 3, pp. 13-30).
The above stand has been
(explicitly or implicitly) taken by Socialist leaders – who
invariably happen to be those who “receive more than others,”
“are richer than others,” etc. – ever since. It is a
stand that is clearly shared by the leaders of the corporate
But, while the power of
Socialist political leaders is relative, that of corporate leaders is near
to absolute and is inevitably used by them to ensure that Socialist
equality does not apply to themselves.
A classic example that is as
instructive as it is illustrative, is the case of
Baron Guy de Rothschild, the late head of the Rothschilds’
banking empire in France. Baron Guy, a close associate of the Marxist
Jacques Attali, supported the presidential
campaign of the Socialist François Mitterrand,
helping him to become President in 1981. In the following year,
Mitterrand nationalised French banks, including
Baron Guy’s Banque Rothschild.
surrounded himself with Rothschild associates like the brothers Olivier and
Bernard Stirn, Henri Emmanuelli
and, above all, special presidential adviser for economic matters (and
advocate of nationalisation) Jacques Attali, whom the Financial
Times aptly described as “the philosopher-king of Mitterrand’s
court” (“Men & Matters: Sherpa Attali,” FT,
7 Jun. 1982).
Moreover, as pointed out by
Rothschild biographer Niall Ferguson, there was a twist in the story. Not
only were Rothschild interests outside banking left untouched but the
minister responsible for the nationalisation of
the Rothschild bank was Henri Emmanuelli, a
director of the Paris branch of the Rothschilds’
Swiss-based Compagnie Financière
Edmond de Rothschild and the nationalisation
– which entailed a substantial compensation from the state –
was described by some observers as a blessing in disguise for a firm that
was not doing particularly well at that moment in time (Ferguson, p. 497).
Finally, Mitterrand allowed
the Rothschilds to open a new banking house and
the application of Socialist principles of “equality” to the
leaders of finance was soon a thing of the past that no Socialist president
has dared to repeat.
Socialism and World Government
In line with monopolistic money interests,
all branches of Socialism have advocated world government. However, the
leading elements in this effort have been Fabianism
and its ally Milnerism, which revolved around
Lord Milner (a Socialist and Rothschild collaborator) and his associates in
the Milner Group.
The original Milner-Fabian
idea of the division of the world among four or five big powers
crystallised in the Fabian document International Government (1916)
which formed the basis for the League of Nations, established in 1919 and
bankrolled by Rockefeller and allied interests.
The League of Nations' successor, the
United Nations, was created in 1944 by the same Milner-Fabian
elements. The 1945 San Francisco Conference where the UN Charter was
written, was dominated by the Rockefeller-associated Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR) and Rockefeller interests have played a leading role in UN
affairs ever since (Ratiu, 2012).
and the New World Order
world order” a.k.a. “new international order,” “new
social order,” “new economic order”, etc. and world
government go hand in hand, the former referring to a new system of global
politics and economy, and the latter to the body that is to govern that
new world order came to be promoted by the same Milner-Fabian elements that
were also behind the drive for world government, in particular, those
involved in the League of Nations project.
the first proponents of a new world order were Britain’s Fabian
Socialists who produced several documents like “Labour’s
war Aims” (1917) and “Labour and the
New Social Order” (1918), in which they prescribed sweeping Socialist
policies for the British Empire and the world, including nationalisation of land, industries and transport,
international legislation, an international court, international economic
controls and a supranational authority (Martin, p. 44).
key supporter of the Fabian new world order was US President Woodrow
Wilson, a Democrat and political theorist who advocated centralised
power and who believed that “in fundamental theory socialism
and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same”
(“Socialism and Democracy,” 1887).
Tellingly, Wilson was a close
collaborator of financial interests like the Morgan and the Rockefeller
Groups (who had backed his 1912 presidential campaign), as well as of Fabian
and Milnerite elements like presidential adviser
Walter Lippmann, a member of both the Fabian
Society and the Milner Group. Under their influence, he became one of the
driving forces behind the League of Nations.
The concept of a new world
order continued to be vigorously promoted by Milnerite
elements associated with Wilson’s League such as Alfred Zimmern, who gave lectures on the subject in the early
1930s, while in 1935 General Jan Smuts declared that the League
“marks the visible and tangible coming of a new world order”.
On its part, the Fabian Socialist British Labour
Party declared that “The Labour Party will not abandon, now or ever, the vision
of a New World Order” (Labour Party
Annual Conference Report, 1939).
crowning moment of the New World Order project came in 1974 when the
Rockefeller-controlled United Nations (the world-government-to-be) passed
the Declaration on a New International Economic Order which stated:
the members of the United Nations … solemnly proclaim our united
determination to work urgently for the Establishment of a New International Economic Order”
(Resolution A/RES/S6/3201, 1 May 1974).
President of the UN General Assembly at the time was the Algerian Socialist
and the Rockefeller Group had close links with the UN leadership through
various channels like Leo Pierre, the Chase Manhattan (the
Rockefellers’ bank) vice-president responsible for relationships with
the UN or directly, through Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim with whom David Rockefeller was on friendly
terms (Rockefeller, p. 248).
financial interests behind the new-world-order agenda also become apparent
from the connections of other international key figures promoting it, from
Henry Kissinger to Tony Blair (“US need for new world order,” The Times, 27 Feb. 1969; “What
Kind of New World Order?”, Washington
Post, 3 Dec. 1991; “Blair returns to new world order,” BBC News, 4 Jan. 2002).
former US Secretary of State and presidential adviser, Kissinger has been a
close friend and associate of the Rockefellers since the 1950s when he
worked for the Rockefeller brothers David and Nelson. He has also been
identified as a Soviet collaborator by American and French sources (de Villemarest, 2004, vol. 1, p. 34).
Another key instrument
through which Socialism has pursued its agenda of world government/new
world order is the Socialist International (SI). The SI was formed by
Britain’s Fabian Society in 1951 to co-ordinate worldwide
co-operation between Socialist parties and other organisations
including Socialist governments.
At the 2-4 June 1962 Oslo
Conference, the SI declared that:
“The ultimate objective of the parties of the
Socialist International is nothing less than world government. As a first
step towards it, they seek to strengthen the United Nations so that it may become more and more
policy was promoted by SI members around the world. For example, the 1964
manifesto of the British Labour Party (a dominant
element in the SI system) read: “For us world government is the final objective
and the United Nations the
chosen instrument …”
As the UN is a Rockefeller operation, is it clear that the SI and affiliated organisations are promoting a world government
(represented by the UN) controlled by international financial interests.
and the European Union
Like other Socialist
projects, the idea of a United States of Europe originated in liberal
capitalist circles, notably those around Richard Cobden, and was endorsed
by leading Socialists like Engels and Wilhelm Liebknecht, founder of the Social Democratic
Workers’ Party of Germany (SDAP) (Liebknecht,
By 1914, when the Fabian
Society was exploring international government, the idea had become part of
the official policy of the Fabian-created and -controlled Independent Labour Party (ILP) (“Review of the Week,” Labour Leader, 1 Oct. 1914). Other
Socialists promoting a United States of Europe from the 1920s were the
Austrian Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, the
Pole Joseph Retinger and the Englishman Arthur
(later Lord) Salter, a former Fabian Society member.
After World War II, the
project was resuscitated by the same elements and it was imposed on Europe
through the US Marshall Plan that set the economic and political
unification of Europe as a precondition for financial aid.
As with the UN, the Marshall
Plan was devised, promoted and implemented by elements linked to
Rockefeller interests operating within the US State Department in
collaboration with Socialist regimes such as that of British Prime Minister
Clement Attlee, whose Fabian Socialist Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin
chaired the 13 July 1947 conference that established the Committee for
European Economic Co-operation (CEEC), later called Organisation
for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC).
In his Philadelphia speech
dubbed “Declaration of Interdependence” of 4 July 1962, US
President J F Kennedy declared:
United States looks on this vast enterprise [the European Economic
Community] with hope and admiration … To aid its progress has been a
basic object of our foreign policy for seventeen years” (Monnet, p. 467).
adviser was Rockefeller associate Henry Kissinger and the State Department
had been dominated by the Rockefellers’ Council on Foreign Relations
(CFR) since the early 1940s when the State Department set up the Advisory
Committee on Postwar Foreign Policy whose vice-chairman was CFR member and
leading new world order advocate Sumner Welles
(Smoot, p. 8).
Aid funds were funnelled through the
CFR-controlled European Cooperation Administration (ECA) and the American Committee for a United Europe (ACUE) to various European organisations,
the vast majority of which were founded and/or run by Socialists and fellow
left-wingers like Jean Monnet, Paul-Henri Spaak, Joseph Retinger, Hugh
Gaitskell, Denis Healey and others. (Aldrich, 1995; Dorril,
Like the UN, the EU was run
by Socialists from the time of the first President of the Common Assembly
of the European Coal and Steel Community (which later became the European
Parliament), the Belgian Socialist Paul-Henri Spaak,
and has remained dominated by Socialists such as Roy Jenkins (former Fabian
Society chairman), Jacques Delors, Romano Prodi, Javier Solana, Lord Mandelson
(another leading Fabian Society member), Baroness Ashton and many others.
All major forms of Socialism –
Marxism, Soviet Communism, Social Democracy and Fabianism
– have been associated with dictatorship. In part, this has to do
with the individual personalities of Socialist founders. Karl Marx was
universally described as “domineering” and “fanatical
authoritarian” by various sources from police reports to statements
by his employers and political rivals. Ferdinand Lassalle,
the founder of German Social Democracy, was similarly dictatorial and the
same applies to the founders of Soviet Communism like Lenin as well as to
the founders of Fabian Socialism like Sidney and
Beatrice Webb and Bernard Shaw (Ratiu,
However, an equally important role has been
played by Socialist ideology itself. Marx saw Capitalism as the
dictatorship of the middle over the working classes and aimed to replace it
with what he termed “dictatorship of the proletariat”. In his The State and Revolution (1917),
Lenin went to extraordinary lengths to dismiss democracy as a temporary and
dispensable phase in the transition from Capitalism to Communism.
Similarly, Lassalle advocated an authoritarian
collectivist state (albeit one headed by a monarch).
On their part, the Fabians, who were great admirers of dictators like Lenin and Stalin,
believed in an authoritarian regime run by a body of economists and other
“experts” in which they would discreetly pull the strings from
behind the scenes (Martin, p. 340) – a goal they shared with their Milnerite allies.
At national level, Socialism’s
dictatorial tendencies are evident in policies like state-enforced mass
immigration and multiculturalism, which are implemented without the consent
of the populations concerned. Internationally, it is reflected in the
Socialist drive for the establishment of an authoritarian world government.
Socialists, their liberal collaborators and their like-minded financial
backers have played leading roles in the creation of un-democratic
institutions and organisations like the United Nations, the European Union
and the Mediterranean Union.
and political violence
From its 19th-century
beginnings, Socialism advocated the violent overthrow of the existing order
by a group of armed revolutionaries. Marx called for the arming of
revolutionary workers with “musket, rifles, cannon and
ammunition” (Marx, 1850), while Engels
defined revolution as a reign of terror, as “the act whereby one part
of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles,
bayonets and cannon,” declaring that the victorious party had to
maintain this rule by means of “the terror which its arms inspire in
the reactionaries” (“On
Authority,” Almanacco Italiano,
published Dec. 1874).
was put into practice by Lenin and his Bolshevik comrades in Russia’s
Communist Revolution of October 1917 – which followed Kerensky’s February Revolution – and has
inspired many other Socialist movements and groups ever since, for example,
the German Baader Meinhof
Gang (which was controlled by East Germany’s Marxist intelligence
chief Markus Wolf), the Italian Red Brigades, the Peruvian Shining Path and
the Irish Republican Army (IRA), later known as Provisional IRA (PIRA).
While not directly involved
in acts of violence, more “moderate” forms of Socialism,
notably Fabianism, are clearly linked to
Socialist groups advocating and practising
violence for political ends.
For example, speaking at the
2010 “Anti-Racism Day” conference at the London School of
Economics, honorary chairman of the Fabian-created National Union of
Students (NUS), Ray Hill, declared:
“Stopping extremism in this country is
fundamentally about winning the arguments. Although, of course, in some
cases that is not always possible … where you cannot win the
arguments, it’s a question of winning the fight. If that means
violence, that means violence …”
Hill’s stance was
backed by Ashok Kumar, the LSE Student’s
Union Education Officer, who said:
“If the English Defence
League [an organisation campaigning against the
spread of Islam] or any other fascist organisation
attempted to apply their violent ideology on any community, the right of
that community to defend itself is enshrined in law” (Young, 2010).
Kumar, of course, was being disingenuous.
Hill’s remark is not about self-defence but about deliberately using
violence to “win the argument” that the Left would otherwise lose.
Moreover, in Socialist practice violence is often applied or threatened
“pre-emptively,” with the obvious intention to suppress
political opposition. One infamous instance of this was in February 2010
when the National Union of Students (NUS) blocked a proposed debate on
multiculturalism at the University of Durham, threatening
to organise a “colossal demonstration” with
Unite Against Fascism (UAF) that might result in “students being
With seven million members, the
Labour-dominated NUS is a big bully who knows how
to throw its weight about. Its allies are not far behind. The UAF is a
far-left pressure group which, like the NUS, brands everybody as a “fascist”
who disagrees with Socialist theory or practice. UAF is also known for its acts of “extreme violence”
leading to injuries to police officers, rival protestors and members of the
public (Smith, 2010).
Disturbingly, the UAF has also been linked
to Anti-Fascist Action (AFA), another far-left group set up by Red Action,
an “anti-fascist” organisation preaching “Socialism through terrorism”
and known for its involvement in IRA bombings (Seaton, 1995).
Co-founded in 1922 by the LSE
and London University (another Fabian-controlled institution with which the LSE
had merged earlier), NUS is also a close collaborator of the Federation of
Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS). The University Islamic Societies
affiliated with FOSIS have been described as “conveyor belts”
for extremism and have been linked with convicted Islamic terrorists (Afzal, 2012; Gilligan, 2013).
What emerges is a seamless continuum
stretching from the high seat of Fabian Socialism
at the LSE to “anti-fascist” street gangs to the shadowy world
of international terrorism.
Of particular interests is that the
“anti-fascist” LSE and IRA have been linked with fascistic
dictatorships like that of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi. The regime provided the LSE with hundreds of thousands of pounds
(Pollard, 2011), while at the same time training and supplying the IRA with arms
Gaddafi, of course, was an Arab Socialist
and Chairman of the African Union, an organisation co-founded by member of
the Fabian Society’s Colonial Bureau Julius
Nyerere (Ratiu, p.
447). According to leaked diplomatic cables, Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Islam had arranged for 400 “future leaders” of Libya to receive
leadership and management training at the LSE (Roberts,
Another line of contact between the Fabian Society and Gaddafi’s murderous regime was
provided by Tony Blair, a Fabian Society member,
who was in close touch with Gaddafi on behalf of J P Morgan who
managed Libya’s oil money (Spencer, 2011).
Thus, whatever boundaries
there may have been between Socialism and international financial
interests, both Western and non-Western, they are becoming very difficult
to detect, to the point of being virtually invisible.
The Marxist concept of Socialist revolution
entailed the division of society into two classes, the revolutionary and
the reactionary, of which the latter was to be physically eliminated in
order to give way to those who were fit for the new Socialist world
order (Class Struggles in France,
p. 114). Engels went even further, declaring that
whole nations – deemed “reactionary” – were destined to perish in a future Socialist world war and
this would be a “step forward” (“The Magyar Struggle,” 13 Jan. 1849, MECW, vol. 8, p. 227).
Stalin’s Socialist regime executed 681,692 persons for
“anti-Soviet activities” in 1937-38 (one year) alone (Pipes, 2001, p. 66) and the total
number of its victims has been estimated at between 20
million (Conquest, 1991) and
million (Rummel, 1990). Similarly, the victims of China’s
Socialist regime under Mao Zedong have been estimated to number over
70 million (Chang & Halliday, 2005; Rummel,
less well-known but equally horrific case of genocide was that of
between five and six million German men women and children who perished as
a result of deportation, mistreatment and starvation at the hands of Allied
authorities between 1944 and 1950 (de Zayas, p.
111; Bacque, pp. 119, 204; Dietrich, pp. 107-8,
While the chief architect of the
plan resulting in this deliberate genocide was US Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr., a supporter of the American League for
Industrial Democracy (LID) – the London Fabians’
“provincial society” – the collaborators in this crime
included Communist Russians and British Socialists like Foreign Secretary
Ernest Bevin and Minister for Germany and Austria John Hynd
who, as his predecessor Lord Salter tells, kept the British-occupied
population on daily starvation rations of 1,240 calories (Salter, p. 302).
The advent of mass
immigration from the Commonwealth into Britain in the 1950s and 60s
presented the Socialist Labour Party with another
opportunity to engage in genocidal social engineering. The Party abandoned
its traditional British supporters and sided with the newcomers against the
relations in British cities, whose local councils were controlled by Labour, were seen in terms of the position of black
(non-white) people throughout the world (Banton,
pp. 106-7) and the Labour policy of “race
equality” was aimed at changing the “power relations
between white and black people” in favour
of the non-white immigrant population – as evident from Labour programmatic papers like A Policy for Equality: Race (ILEA, 1983).
Before long, a new theory of
“replacement immigration” was advanced, which was based on the
idea that Europe’s falling population had to be replaced with
non-Europeans. This was proposed by the United Nations Population Division in 2000
and has been promoted by Socialist organisations
like the Labour Party under a number of pretexts
ranging from “making Britain more multicultural”
to “creating economic growth”.
The result of these policies
has been that Britain currently has a non-white population of about 10
million and is expected to become a white-minority country by the end of
the century. A parallel situation is found in Europe and America. Amounting
to 25 per cent of the world’s total population in 1900,
Europe’s population has dramatically fallen to 11 per cent and is expected
to further decrease to 7 per cent by 2050 (Browne
what extent can we say that this is a Socialist agenda? Let us recall that
the LSE was founded by the Socialist Fabian Society in 1895 for the express
purpose of advancing its objectives and promoting Socialism. We have seen
that the LSE Student’s Union and its ally, the National Union of
Students (another Fabian-created outfit) proscribe citizens concerned about
mass immigration, multiculturalism and Islamisation
as “fascists” who are to be silenced through violence.
chairman Peter Sutherland is the head of the UN Migration Forum, a post to
which he was appointed by Rockefeller associate Kofi
Annan. During a House of Lords inquiry in June
2012, Sutherland called on the European Union to “do its best to undermine the national
homogeneity” of European
states (Sutherland, 20 Jun. 2012). The week before, he had said that a
projected migration of 500 million Africans into Europe was “a good thing” (Sutherland, 15 Jun. 2012).
also doubles as honorary chairman of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral
Commission. In 2008 he chaired the Trilateral’s
European meeting at Paris, which endorsed French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s Mediterranean Union project aiming to
merge the European Union with North Africa and the Middle East, describing
it as a “model for the world.”
of Africa has always been a key plank in Fabian policy which has been
relentlessly pursued through Fabian organisations
like the Fabian Africa Bureau, the Fabian Colonial Bureau, the Movement for
Colonial Freedom and the African Union. Africa’s population explosion
itself, whose spillover into Europe Peter Sutherland (as UN special
representative for migration and development) so enthusiastically welcomes,
is in no small measure the result of the activities of foreign-aid organisations like Oxfam, co-founded in 1942 by Gilbert
Murray, a friend of Fabian luminaries like H. G. Wells and Bernard Shaw.
The latter was a vocal advocate of the fusion of the races, declaring that
“the future is to the mongrel” (Holroyd, vol. 3, pp. 283-4).
Particularly disturbing are
recent attempts to lend “scientific” legitimacy to this
essentially anti-white, racist ideology. For example, a study presented in
2010 to the British Psychological Society by Cardiff University claimed
that mixed-race people are “genetically fitter” and “more attractive”. The methods and findings of such studies are not only
highly dubious, but they cannot be unconnected with the fact that Cardiff
University operates in partnership with the UN and other Rockefeller-associated outfits like the
World Health Organisation (WHO) and IBM.
leading organisation involved in the promotion of
mass immigration and population replacement with strong links to the LSE
and other Socialist institutions, organisations
and individuals, as well as to the left-wing sections of the corporate
community, is the Oxford Martin School.
(This article was last
modified on 30 September 2013)
See also Unite Against Socialism
“Is FOSIS Training the Violent Extremists of Tomorrow?,” Huffington Post,
3 Feb 2012.
Aldrich, Richard J., “OSS, CIA and European Unity: The
American Committee on United Europe, 1948-60,” International History Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, London, Nov.
1995; also in Diplomacy &
Statecraft, Vol. 8, No. 1, London, March 1997, pp. 184-227.
Ashton, James, “Lady and the banks … why Lynn
Forester is trying to rehabilitate capitalism,” Evening Standard, 19 Sept. 2012.
Browne, Anthony, “The
last days of a white world,” Observer,
3 Sept. 2000.
Chang, Jung & Halliday, Jon, Mao: The Unknown Story, New York,
Peter & Horowitz, David, The
Rockefellers: An American Dynasty, London, 1976.
Conquest, Robert, The
Great Terror: A Reassessment, Oxford University Press, 1991.
De Villemarest, Pierre, Facts & Chronicles Denied To The
Public, vols. 1 & 2, 2003; English trans. Slough, Berkshire, 2004.
Dorril, Stephen, MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations, London, 2001.
Ferguson, Niall, The House of Rothschild, Vol. 2, New
York, NY, 2000.
Gilligan, Andrew, “Baroness Warsi
and the demons of hate,” Daily
Telegraph, 27 Apr 2013.
Harnden, Toby, “Libyan arms helped the
IRA to wage war,” Daily
Telegraph, 4 Apr. 2011.
Michael, Bernard Shaw, 3 vols., London, 1991.
Kissinger, Henry, “What Kind of New World Order?”, Washington
Post, 3 Dec. 1991.
Lenin, V. I., Collected
Works (LCW), 45 vols., Moscow, 1960-70.
Liebknecht, Wilhelm, Preface to “On the
Political Position of Social-Democracy,” London, 1889.
“A Webb of Lies,” The
Free Market, Feb. 2000, vol. 18, no. 2.
Rose, Fabian Freeway: High Road to
Socialism in the U.S.A., Chicago, IL, 1966.
Marx, K. & Engels, F., Collected Works (MECW) [English], 50 vols., London,
Marx, K. & Engels, F., Selected Works (MESW) [English], 3 vols., Moscow, 1969.
Karl, “Address of the Central Committee to the Communist
League,” March 1850, Marx, K. & Engels, F., Selected
Works (MESW) [English], 3 vols., Moscow, 1969,
vol. 1, pp. 175-85.
Monnet, Jean, Memoirs, English trans., London, 1978.
Nauer, David, “Die
Gerhard Schröder AG,” Basler Zeitung, 10 March 2010.
Pipes, Richard, Communism:
A Brief History, London, 2001.
Stephen, “Libya and the LSE: Large Arab gifts to universities lead to
‘hostile’ teaching,” Daily
Telegraph, 3 Mar. 2011.
Priestland, David, The Red Flag: Communism and the Making of the Modern World,
Ioan, The Milner-Fabian
Conspiracy: How an international elite is taking over and destroying
Europe, America and the World, Richmond, 2012.
Laura, “LSE struck deal to train Libya’s future leaders,”
Daily Telegraph, 3 Mar. 2011.
David, Memoirs, New York, NY,
Rummel, Rudolph, Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917,
New Brunswick, NJ, 1990; www.hawaii.edu
Rummel, Rudolph, “Reevaluating
China’s democide to be 73,000,000,”
20 Nov. 2005.
Matt, “Charge of the New Red Brigade,” Independent on Sunday, 29 Jan. 1995.
Lewis, “Police blame anti-fascists for violence,” Independent, 22 Mar. 2010.
Dan, The Invisible Government,
Boston, MA, 1962.
Socialist International, “The World Today: The Socialist
Perspective,” Declaration of the Socialist International at the
Council Conference held in Oslo on 2-4 June 1962.
Spencer, Richard; Blake,
Heidi; Swain, Jon, “Tony Blair ‘visited Libya to lobby for J P
Morgan”, Daily Telegraph,
18 Sept 2011.
“A constructive attitude towards migration is a moral issue,”
address to the International Eucharistic Congress, Dublin, 15 Jun. 2012.
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.
Antony C., Wall
Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, first published in New York, 1974,
reprinted in Forest Row, East Sussex, 2011.
Antony C., The
Federal Reserve Conspiracy, first published in 1995, reprinted in
Carson City, NV, 2005.
Commission (Europe), Meeting Summary,
32nd European Regional Meeting, Paris, 7-9 November 2008.
Simon and Owen, Glen, “Blair’s Africa charity bids for share of
£8 bn foreign aid budget”, Daily Mail, 13 Nov 2011.
David C., “Rockefeller in Washington,” The Progressive, Feb. 1959, pp. 11-13.
Calumn, “Anti-racism day kicks off at the
LSE,” The Beaver, 24 Oct.
’Revolt on the Right’: UKIP and the Fabian
Crimea, Ukraine and the Anglo-American New World Order
Nelson Mandela: “President of the World” or
Diversity is Not a Catholic Value
it’s Saturday, it’s the Germans again – or why the Mail has lost the plot
a British revolution
Do white people have a future in South Africa?
Conservatives: The Inklings in Their Political Context
there a “need” for immigrants?
The Labour Party, a puppet of
the Fabian Society
The truth about the Labour
truth about the Fabian Society
The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy against humanity
Socialism’s prescient critics
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism
Britain divided by Islam, survey finds
Abolish this corrupt chamber – the House of
Commons, that is
The Real Churchill
The last days of a white world
A Webb of Lies
Socialism and Incentives
Ratiu, Ioan, The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy: How an
international elite is taking over and destroying Europe, America and the
World, Richmond, 2012.
Quigley, Carroll, The Anglo-American Establishment: From
Rhodes to Cliveden, GSG & Associates, San
Pedro, CA, 1981.
Martin, Rose, Fabian
Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A., Chicago,
Eric D., The Fabian
Socialist Contribution to the Communist Advance, Melbourne, 1964.
Dorril, Stephen, MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations, London, 2001.
Horowitz, David &
Poe, Richard, The Shadow Party: How
George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties
Radicals seized control of the Democratic Party, Nashville, TN, 2006.
Ye’or, Bat, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Madison, NJ,
Bawer, Bruce, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying The West From
Within, New York, NY, 2006.
et al., The Black Book of Communism:
Crimes, Terror, Repression, Engl. translation, Cambridge, MA and
Williamson, Kevin, The Politically Incorrect Guide to
Socialism, Washington, DC,
Hitchens, Peter, The Abolition of Britain: From Winston Churchill to Princess Diana,
Knight, Nigel, Churchill: The Greatest Briton Unmasked,
Newton Abbot, Devon, 2008.
Docherty, Gerry & MacGregor, James, Hidden
History: The Secret Origins of the First World War, Edinburgh, 2013.