Towards the end of the 19th century, a coalition of left-wing financial and industrial interests resolved to take over the British Empire and the world for which purpose they set up two organizations: the Milner Group and the Fabian Society.
The roots of this initiative go back to the 1700s’ Industrial Revolution which had given birth to a new powerful class consisting of international trade, finance and industrial interests. Much of these interests’ power and influence derived from gold and diamond deposits which they exploited through their mining operations. Gold produced by the Milner Group’s South African mining companies like the Anglo American Corporation amounted to half of the world’s newly mined gold. Large quantities of gold were shipped to London, refined at N. M. Rothschild’s Royal Mint Refinery and sold through the banking firm N. M. Rothschild & Sons. The gold price itself was being fixed daily in the “fixing room” of N. M. Rothschild’s offices on St. Swithin’s Lane in the City of London.
A similar monopoly was held on diamonds, all South African diamond mines being owned by the Milner Group’s company De Beers – which continues to hold a virtual monopoly on the price and marketing of diamonds through its Central Selling Organization. Another key resource controlled by the Milner Group and its associates was oil which it monopolized through operations like British Petroleum (BP), Royal Dutch Shell, and Standard Oil, in addition to important industries such as steel which it controlled through various outfits from the US to the British Steel Corporation. The same interests also controlled banking and finance through a worldwide network of financial firms like the Bank of England, the US Federal Reserve System, Lazard, J P Morgan, Chase, and the various Rothschild banks.
The global interests and activities of this new “liberal capitalist” class induced its leading elements to work for the destruction of the existing world order based on sovereign nation-states – which they regarded as restrictive – and set up a world government that would guarantee the financial and economic freedoms required by these elements to achieve their monopolistic ends.
As a first step toward world government, the United Kingdom was to be made part of a “Commonwealth of Nations” which in turn was to be incorporated into a world organization like the League of Nations and later the United Nations. Ever-wider territories supplying this elite with manpower and natural resources became off-limits to other powers, demanding “hands-off-Africa” policies backed up by military might.
As readily admitted by Milner Group leaders Lord Milner, Lionel Curtis and Henry Hodson, it was the scramble for resources or the “struggle between ‘the haves’ and ‘the have-nots,’” that inevitably led to international conflict. Hodson, the director of the British Ministry of Information’s Empire Division, openly stated that the domination of Europe by any nation other than Britain itself had always been unacceptable to Britain and that Britain needed not only an empire but a “world order” under British leadership. “British leadership,” of course, meant leadership by the Milner Group and its associates ruling the Empire and most of the world from behind the scenes.
While the Milner Group focused on monopolizing the world’s material resources, the Fabian Society concentrated on the intellectual and human fields. Modeling itself on the Milner Group’s British South Africa Company, the Society cynically aimed to capture the heart and mind of the unsuspecting masses with tales of a future “Socialist wonderland” and, in its own words, “control them for its profit and their own good.”
Milner-Fabian sponsorship of political systems like Socialism which promoted centralization of finance, economy, and politics; revolutions such as those of Russia and China; military conflicts from the Boer to the two World Wars; world organizations from the League of Nations to the United Nations and the European Union, etc., has been motivated solely by a relentless and almost pathological drive for financial profit and world control.
Mass immigration supplying it with cheap work forces has been promoted by this elite as a convenient substitute for slavery and colonial exploitation, whilst multiculturalism and racial diversity have been imposed by it as a means to defuse conflict. In its quest for world supremacy, this elite has found a challenger and ally in the Muslim world whose oil-rich leaders have become its partners, leading to the systematic promotion of Islam in the Western world at the expense of other faiths.
In short, the roots of all major economic, cultural and social events and developments from the late 1800s to this day can be traced to the aims and activities of this elite. Likewise, the objective analysis of historical facts shows that the policies of world leaders from Winston Churchill and Clement Attlee to F D Roosevelt, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and many others have been largely dictated by the agenda of the Milner-Fabian Conspiracy, demonstrating that political leaders are mere administrators of power whereas the true power holders are a small clique bent on dominating the world for its own purposes.
The founding, development and aims of the above two organizations up to the 1960s have been separately described by the historians Carroll Quigley and Rose Martin. Ioan Ratiu in The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy (2012) offers a critical study of their worldwide interactions, latest activities and devastating impact on Western society, culture and civilization.
Paperback: 483 pages
Publisher: Free Europe Books
Date: September 2012
Now available at Amazon UK
About the author: Ioan Ratiu was born in Bucharest, Romania, which at the time was behind the “Iron Curtain” that separated Eastern Europe’s Soviet-controlled socialist countries from Western Europe.
Like many other Eastern Europeans, he emigrated with his family to the West, yet remained critical of the system in his country of birth. Inspired by his mother, a former judge and pro-democracy campaigner, he soon joined the rising wave of protest against Romania’s socialist dictatorship.
However, he felt that mere criticism and protest was not enough: a lasting solution could only be found by identifying the root cause of the problem. Having acquired a keen interest in political philosophy and history, he began to trace the origins of socialism with the help of Western Europe’s greatest libraries and archives.
This led to the discovery that socialism’s ultimate objectives, such as world government and abolition of the nation-state, were shared by certain powerful and influential groups among liberal capitalists who claimed to be pro-democracy and against socialism. Even worse, these groups were actively sponsoring the advance of socialism together with cultural and demographic trends such as mass immigration and Islamisation that, if left unchallenged, would result not only in world government by an undemocratic elite but in the destruction of Western society, culture and civilisation.
He also discovered that his findings were shared by perfectly reputable and honest authors such as Carroll Quigley and Rose Martin who, however, continued to be dismissed by the mainstream as peddlers of “conspiracy theories” even though historical evidence and events proved them right.
Convinced that this was a great injustice that had to be rectified and that the course the world had taken could only be changed if the true facts were more widely known, he decided to write a book outlining his findings and backing them up with hundreds of excerpts from newspaper articles, autobiographies, diaries, archived government documents, official statements of the authorities and organisations involved and other supporting evidence, all leading to the conclusion that an Anglo-American Establishment or Milner-Fabian Conspiracy against humanity does actually exist – even though its architects, in so far as they admit to it, may see it as a “good thing”.
The author’s personal view is that the Western world can only survive the dramatic changes it is currently undergoing by a return to Christianity, Western culture and all the traditions and values that have made Europe and America great and that Great Britain can play a leading role in a European movement of cultural and spiritual revival as it did in the establishment of Western liberal democracy. He also believes that Brexit is a step in the right direction – the book explains why – but that more remains to be done.
Irrespective of one’s political views, Ioan Ratiu’s book The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy is an important work that challenges many common assumptions about how liberal democracy works and invites historians, intellectuals, politicians and the general public alike to objectively examine the facts and start taking measures to bring about real change before it is too late.
The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy and the politics of a new racism
Africa had long been a British strategic basis for control of the Atlantic and Indian oceans. But Africa was also a theatre of racial tension for which the Milner Group and the Fabian Society themselves were largely responsible (Quigley, p. 225; Martin, p. 66). In the struggle that ensued the Milner-Fabian leadership took the side of the Africans against Europeans and this has determined its policy ever since.
A key objective of the Milner-Fabian combine was to transfer control of the Empire from the British government to itself. The advocacy of independence for all colonial territories, including Africa, was a central plank in this agenda. With the Milner-Fabian-engineered independence of India in the late 1940s (both Mahatma Gandhi and Muhammad Ali Jinnah were Fabian Society members), Africa became central to Milner-Fabian colonial interests and has retained this position to this day.
Fabian societies had begun to appear in South Africa and elsewhere by 1916 and larger organizations were cropping up in the 1930s and 40s: the Nigerian Labour Study Circle and, of course, the notorious Fabian Africa Bureau, Fabian Colonial Bureau and the Movement for Colonial Freedom, all operating in close collaboration with each other for Milner-Fabian ends. The Fabian Colonial Bureau was established in 1940 by Fabian Executive member Arthur Creech Jones and Rita Hinden, who co-authored the Plan for Africa (1942), laying down Fabian designs for the continent.
Among the Bureau’s many members were leading African nationalists like Tom Mboya and Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya and Julius Nyerere of Tanzania. Having become acquainted with Fabian teachings during his university years in Edinburgh, Nyerere went on to develop his own socialist theories forming the basis of African Socialism and became co-founder of the internationalist Organization of African Unity, whose successor is the present African Union and its daughter organization the African Economic Community, which aims to reconstruct Africa along the lines of the European Union (M. Cole, p. 347; Pugh, pp. 80, 186, 233-4).
Like Mboya’s Kanu Party and Kenyatta’s Mau Mau movement, Nyerere’s OAU was one of the many Milner-Fabian inspired organizations promoting African liberation – often by violent means. Kenyatta’s Mau Mau uprising of the 1950s was a terrorist operation, which did not prevent its leader from later becoming President of Kenya.
However, it is essential to understand that, like all Socialist “liberation” movements, including that led by the infamous Irish Republican Army (IRA), Africa’s anti-colonial movement had as ultimate goal the creation of a World Socialist State led by the Milner-Fabian elite who had instigated the movement in the first place. This goal had been expounded in unambiguous terms in publications like “Imperial Trusteeship” (Fabian Tract No. 230, 1929) by Fabian Society leader and Colonial Office functionary Lord Sydney Olivier.
While Europe’s Socialist parties were calling for a United Socialist Europe (see the 1979 Labour Party manifesto), the sole purpose of independence from official European rule was to subordinate the “liberated” territories to new international organizations unofficially controlled by Milner-Fabian elements, such as the EU and UN. African nations were not only to be merged into a Pan-African entity like the African Union but that entity itself was to be united with the (Socialist-dominated) European Union. The idea of uniting Milner-Fabian-controlled Africa with Milner-Fabian-controlled Europe was embraced in 1960 by the Rockefeller-controlled American Committee on United Europe (ACUE) – before its funds were diverted to more pressing projects like NATO (Aldrich, p. 210). But the project was never forgotten and work to that end has been quietly carried on ever since, with the result that this enduring Milner-Fabian dream is now set to come true.
In an interview with the North African magazine Jeune Afrique, Olivier Stirn, Nicolas Sarkozy’s adviser for the Union for the Mediterranean (which aims to merge the EU with North Africa and the Middle East) and Union for a Popular Movement (Sarkozy’s party) Liaison Officer for the African Union, stated: “My mission is to prove that the UfM is not a moat but a bridge between Europe and Subsaharan Africa … in reality, President Sarkozy wants to establish a Euro-African axis with the UfM as its core” (“Olivier Stirn,” Jeune Afrique, 31 May 2010).
It is to be noted that Olivier Stirn was a long-time Rothschild associate, having known the late Baron Guy de Rothschild since childhood and served as adviser to Rothschild & Cie. The Elysée Deputy Secretary-General in charge of the economy and architect of Sarkozy’s economic programme was François Pérol, managing partner at Rothschild & Cie. The financial facility for Sarkozy’s UfM project, Inframed Infrastructure Fund, was operating in partnership with the Rockefeller-associated Middle East North Africa Opportunities Trust, whose advisory committee included Lord Rothschild and Andrew Knight of Rothschild Investment Trust Capital Partners (RITCP), etc.
Rothschild links to French governments can be traced all the way to President Georges Pompidou, former manager of Banque Rothschild and architect of the Euro-Arab Dialogue, and before that to Prime Minister René Mayer, a cousin of the French Rothschilds and former manager of their business empire, who later became president of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) High Authority. France’s new President, the Socialist François Hollande, is set to continue this time-honoured tradition: his Deputy Secretary-General in charge of economic issues (which are closely connected to Euro-African union) is Rothschild & Cie. manager Emmanuel Macron, a disciple of leading world-government advocate and long-time Rothschild associate Jacques Attali.
Moreover, the French plan for a Euro-African axis overlaps in all essential points with that of Anglo-American interests. North Africa and the Middle East had been regarded as a “gateway to Africa” by Britain’s Fabian Socialist government as early as the 1940s. Linking Africa with a united Europe to create a single economic block was a scheme promoted in 1948 by Fabian Socialist Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, former chairman of the infamous Society for Socialist Information and Propaganda (later New Fabian Research Bureau) and architect of the Western European Union. Needless to say, British governments were also connected with Rothschild and associated money interests either directly or through Milner-Fabian go-betweens.
Having established that this was a wider scheme linked to the Milner-Fabian Conspiracy, we may now briefly look into what motivated it. Apart from representing an important step in the direction of world government, Milner-Fabian designs such as “developing” Africa and uniting it with Europe would bring clear benefits to the international money power including:
- Access to natural resources and raw materials.
- Access to new markets created by higher living standards and a growing population in Africa.
- Access to cheap labour in Africa as a result of local population growth.
- Access to cheap labour in Europe as a result of increased African immigration.
The above ends have been simultaneously pursued by the money power’s international network of charities and foreign aid agencies. For example, Oxfam, a global charity operation set up in the early 1940s by friends of the Fabian leadership (see below), focuses on non-white areas like Africa, South Asia and Latin America – all long-standing areas of concern to British Fabian Socialism and its Milnerite associates. Europe’s economists and policy makers have noted with approval that the international charity and foreign aid effort leading to unprecedented population growth in places like Africa “produces a swelling workforce capable of producing more goods and continues economic growth” (“Global population study launched by Royal Society,” BBC News, 12 Jul. 2010).
Inevitably, the dramatic demographic and cultural changes brought about by the above policies gave rise to legitimate concern on the part of indigenous Europeans. However, such concern was evidently unwelcome to the financial interests involved and came to be suppressed by them through race-relations laws imposed by national governments and, increasingly, by international organizations like the EU and UN. With mounting African and other non-European immigration into Europe, racial tensions were transported from former colonial territories to Europe itself, which became a new target for colonization. As in the former colonies, the money power sided with the non-European newcomers.
By the 1960s, the left-wing ideology promoted by the money power’s political representatives, associates and collaborators crystallized around the following three points:
1. Racial polarization was to be considered as the best stimulus to “progressive change” in ethnic relations.
2. All non-white people (West Indians, Pakistanis, Indians, African blacks, African Asians, and Chinese) were to be considered as a single group, called “black” (and standing in opposition to white people). A similar concept, “black and minority ethnic” (BME), has been used for the same purpose of creating a united opposition to the white indigenous population.
3. Ethnic relations in European cities were to be seen in terms of the position of black people throughout the world and of the European colonial legacy (Banton, pp. 106-7).
The deliberate attempt to suppress Europe’s indigenous population and its culture is evident from both policies and statements of those responsible:
In Britain, Labour Party programmatic papers like A Policy for Equality: Race (ILEA, 1983) show that the Left’s policy of “race equality” aimed to change the “power relations between white and black people” in favour of the non-white immigrant population. The same Fabian Socialist Left embarked on a programme of state-enforced mass immigration deliberately intended to make Britain more multicultural and multiracial (“Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser,” Daily Telegraph, 5 May 2011). At European level, the same interests have called for the EU to “do its best to undermine national homogeneity and sense of difference from others” as exemplified by Peter Sutherland of the UN Global Forum on Migration and Development (Lords Select Committee, p. 25). As well as heading the GFMD, Sutherland is chairman of the Milner-Fabian-associated banking company Goldman Sachs International and the London School of Economics.
Meanwhile, the media – the money power’s instrument of propaganda, manipulation and control – have been promoting black and mixed-race persons as “superior” to whites. Various media outlets have taken to projecting mixed-race people as “stronger” and “more attractive” (“A black and white issue: The future of society is mixed,” Independent, 26 Nov. 2006, “Mixed race is the perfect face,” Evening Standard, 16 Apr. 2010), while celebrating the decline of Europe’s white population as the “last days of a white world” (“The last days of a white world,” Guardian, 3 Sept. 2000).
Similarly, race relations and human rights operations like the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) have described the dramatic rise in mixed-race people as “hugely positive” and a reason to “celebrate” (“Revealed: the rise of mixed-race Britain,” Observer, 18 Jan. 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jan/18/race-identity-britain-study; “Trevor Phillips: Why Britain is now the LEAST racist country in Europe,” Daily Mail, 19. Jan. 2009 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1121442/TREVOR-PHILLIPS-Why-Britain-LEAST-racist-country-Europe.html; “The mixed race march in Britain,” 19. Jan. 2009, BBCCaribbean.com http://www.bbc.co.uk/caribbean/news/story/2009/01/printable/090119_mixedrace.shtml).
Needless to say, Europe’s growing non-white population serves as a pool of loyal supporters for policies promoting their interests at the expense of the white population. It was non-white immigrants who provided Britain’s Labour Party with a decisive margin in the 1964 election (Martin, p. 102) and – as conceded by leaders of the immigrant community themselves – Labour has remained a party favoured by immigrants to this day (“Khan: Labour’s the only way forward for British Muslims,” Left Foot Forward, 3 May 2010 http://www.leftfootforward.org).
On the other side of the Atlantic, we find that parallel policies have been promoted by the Milner-Fabian Conspiracy’s American associates, namely Carnegie, Rockefeller and Ford interests. The Rockefellers have a long history of support for non-white interests going back to John D. Rockefeller (the founder of Standard Oil) himself. Due to his ruthless business practices, John D. Rockefeller was reportedly one of the most hated men of the time. To improve his image, he supplemented his business activities with philanthropic projects, one of the first of which was funding the Spelman College for African-American Women. His son John D. Rockefeller Jr. followed a similar career. Notably, he was a disciple and financial supporter of John Dewey, a president of the Fabian Socialist League for Industrial Democracy (LID) which the London Fabian Society described as “one of our provincial societies.”
In 1918, J. D. R., Jr. co-founded the experimental Lincoln School of New York which was run according to Deweyian teachings, indoctrinating the offspring of America’s wealthy classes with a sense of personal guilt for the world’s ills and a duty to actively participate in the construction of a new and “better” society on Fabian Socialist lines. Being funded by the Rockefellers’ General Education Board, operated by the Fabian Socialist-dominated School of Education at Rockefeller-founded Columbia University, according to the teachings of Rockefeller-supported Fabian Socialist Dewey and staffed with Fabian Socialist teachers from the Rockefeller-funded Teachers College, the Lincoln School was as thoroughly a Fabian Socialist institution as it was a Rockefellerian one.
The close ideological and financial interconnections between Fabian Socialist and Rockefeller interests also show why, for all practical purposes, Fabian Socialism and Rockefellerism a.k.a. “Rockefeller Republicanism” are indistinguishable from each other. In the 1920s, J. D. R., Jr. had four of his sons – Nelson, Winthrop, Lawrence and David – indoctrinated at the Lincoln School near Harlem (Rockefeller, pp. 26-7; Martin, p. 404; Collier, 192). This also explains the psychological urge of the Rockefeller Clan to support Fabian Socialism and its projects: for the Rockefellers, Fabian Socialism including unreserved and unexamined support for non-white causes, has become a kind of religious mania.
While setting up their Fabian-inspired educational institutions, the same banking and industrial interests set up the Commission on Interracial Cooperation (CIC), among whose leaders was George Foster Peabody, deputy chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, director of the Rockefellers’ General Education Board and trustee of various organizations promoting African-American education like the Tuskegee and Hampton institutes. One of Peabody’s more eccentric feats was supporting the promotion of Negro Spiritual songs in US Army camps and organizing a European tour of the black Hampton Choir to “arouse the British public” (Schenbeck, 2005).
Peabody’s Commission on Interracial Cooperation received grants from the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial along with well-known subversive organizations like the London School of Economics and the Institute of Pacific Relations (Harley, p. 395). Other organizations through which the Rockefeller Foundation and the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial (later reincarnated as the Spelman Fund of New York) promoted interracial relations and education along with African-American culture included the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History and a string of associated black colleges and universities.
This already impressive network of organizations acquired a further international dimension through various interlocking outfits like the International Institute of Teachers College (Columbia University), the Institute of International Education of New York, and the League of Nations’ Intellectual Cooperation Organization which consisted of the International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation and the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, of Paris. The latter was founded by leading Milnerite and long-time friend of the Fabian leadership, Prof. Gilbert Murray (who later founded Oxfam) and operated in close collaboration with the International Institute of Educational Cinematography of Rome and numerous associated bodies.
This international network soon became global both at official level – the work of some of these organizations being taken over by the UNESCO, which is controlled by the same interests – and unofficially, through private outfits like the Synergos Institute which is run by the Rockefellers (David and his daughter Peggy Dulany) themselves.
The Rockefellers’ European counterparts, the Rothschilds themselves, were no strangers to the systematic promotion of black causes. Lord Victor Rothschild, the Labour peer in the House of Lords, was a jazz enthusiast who introduced his sister Kathleen Pannonica (“Nica”) de Koenigswarter to the genre. The “Jazz Baroness,” as Nica came to be known, left England for New York where she not only became a leading promoter of African-American music, civil rights and feminism in the 1950s and 60s, but went further than most white millionaire philanthropists, becoming romantically involved with black American pianist Thelonious Monk (“The secret life of the Jazz Baroness,” The Times, 11 Apr. 2009; “The Jazz Baroness,” BBC Four, 17 Apr. 2009).
We may observe that Rothschild women continue to “lead by example”: Emma Rothschild is married to the leftist Indian economist Amartya Sen, while Kate Rothschild, married to Ben Goldsmith, has been involved with African-American hip-hop singer Jay Electronica (Timothy Thedford) who is believed to be a member of the black activist organization Five Percent Nation which was set up by elements with links to the Nation of Islam (“Goldsmith and Rothschild dynasties head for divorce,” Daily Telegraph, 8 Jun. 2012; “The Rothschild Rap,” Daily Mail, 10 Jun. 2012). It may be added that to the same elite circle have also belonged Ben Goldsmith’s sister Jemima, who married the Pakistani cricketer Imran Khan and her friend, the late Princess Diana, who was involved with various men of Pakistani and Middle Eastern origin.
This type of behaviour on the part of members of the same social group cannot be mere coincidence. Nor can it be unconnected with the money power’s systematic promotion of the mixed-race couple as a desired ideal. In addition to representing the aberrant actions of a dysfunctional and culturally-disoriented elite, such behaviour is clearly politically motivated. Together with other factors such as Prince Charles’s systematic promotion of Islam (Ratiu, pp. 400-5) it demonstrates the Establishment’s determination to play a leading role in the deliberate deconstruction of European society, its culture and civilization. It also shows that what was once the behaviour of left-wing fringe activists is now becoming an elite-imposed cultural norm.
Another supporter of African-American causes was the Scottish-born steel tycoon Andrew Carnegie who, like the Rockefellers and Lord Victor Rothschild, was an admirer of Socialism and author of books like Problems of To-day – Wealth, Labor, Socialism (1908) in which he disparaged wealth and millionaires. Significantly, there appears to be a close ideological connection between Carnegie and Fabian Society leader Bernard Shaw. In 1886, Shaw published the essay “Socialism for Millionaires” in which he wrote that “money is worth nothing to the man who has more than enough,” advising the wealthy to spend their money on social projects. According to Shaw, his essay started a “Millionaire Movement,” inspiring Carnegie to declare that no man should die rich (Shaw, pp. 2, 15). It may be noted that Lord Rothschild made similar pronouncements (Ferguson, 2000, p. 481). At any rate, Carnegie funded the National Negro Business League as well as being a major donor to the Tuskegee Institute and similar causes (cf. Martin, p. 370).
Among other organizations promoting African-American causes that can be linked with both Fabian Socialism and the Milner-associated money power is the National Negro Committee (NNC), later National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). NAACP was America’s first civil rights organization. It was set up in 1909 by Fabian Socialists like William English Walling of the American Fabian League and the African-American W. E. B. Du Bois who later joined the Fabian Intercollegiate Socialist Society (ISS) (Martin, pp. 178 fn, 181). The Rockefellers’ CFR has been strongly represented in the NAACP (Smoot, p. 124).
Last but not least, there were more militant initiatives like South Africa’s Black Consciousness Movement (BCM) which was supported by the Anglican Church (an offshoot of the Fabian-dominated Church of England which was a founding member of the Rockefeller-funded Christian Socialist World Council of Churches) and members of the Anglo-American Establishment like the Astors. South Africa’s anti-white agitators and revolutionaries were also sponsored by the CFR-funded American Committee on Africa (Smoot, p. 124). Similarly, Rhodesia’s (currently Zimbabwe) anti-white terror organization Patriotic Front (PF), whose leader President Robert Mugabe ordered anti-white pogroms, has been funded by the Rockefellers’ World Council of Churches. In America itself, key sponsors of these militant currents have been associated agencies of the Anglo-American Establishment such as the left-wing Ford Foundation (for the Socialist credentials of Henry Ford and his Foundation see Sutton, 1974, p. 154; Smoot, pp. 31, 136; Martin, p. 446; for the Foundation’s support of radical pro-black, pro-immigrant and other left-wing causes see Rooks, pp. 83, 94; Lengell, 2007; Horowitz & Laksin, pp, 53, 55 ff.).
The promotion of interracial and intercultural relations in favour of the black minority may have seemed a worthy endeavour in the early 1900s when blacks were exposed to widespread discrimination. The problem is that, as with other “philanthropic” or “humanitarian” projects of the international money power, its true purpose was to increase the money power’s own wealth, influence and power while simultaneously covering up its agenda of world domination and providing it with a veneer of false respectability and benignancy.
From inception, the promotion of black causes served to provide the money power with a ready supply of efficient workers and loyal service men (hence, for example, the promotion of Negro Spiritual songs in US Army camps). Similarly, the money power’s later promotion of non-whites at the expense of whites has served and continues to serve as a cynical smokescreen for the predatory activities of Anglo-American corporations in Africa and elsewhere where, in close collaboration with black local leaders, they extract natural resources for their own profit while imposing a life of poverty, dictatorship and slavery on the native populations.
Another problem is that the world has moved on: since the 2009 election of Barack Obama as President of the United States (arguably, the most powerful political leader in the world), blacks in the Western world can no longer be said to represent an oppressed minority. In fact, in countries like Brazil, where blacks amount to half of the total population, blacks no longer are a minority at all and the same applies to many Western cities, especially in America, where in twenty-two large cities minorities make up the majority (“5 Most Surprising Findings From the 2010 Census,” Time, 20 Dec. 2011) and, increasingly, also in Europe (Amsterdam, London, Paris, etc.).
Moreover, whites are not being promoted in black-majority countries in the same way as blacks are promoted in white-majority ones. There are no quotas for whites in African governments or state organizations. Groups representing the human rights of whites do not wield the same degree of power and influence as comparable non-white groups do in Europe. Nor is there mass immigration of Europeans into Africa. It follows that interracial relations remain biased towards black populations everywhere and there is no sign of attempts to redress this trend. A more sinister aspect of the problem is that militant movements like South Africa’s BCM and America’s Black Power have spawned organizations which are not only pro-black but positively anti-Western and anti-white.
Nor are anti-white attitudes restricted to the militant currents within the movement. As in Britain, there is mounting evidence that America’s use of interracial relations for political purposes is snowballing out of proportion and out of control. Through its education, media and related industries the money power has come to increasingly project black and mixed-race individuals as intellectually, morally or physically superior to their white counterparts. In the film industry, this has its roots in a new, enormously influential genre which emerged in the early 1970s. Known as “blaxploitation,” it was based on the militant rhetoric of the Black Power and Black Studies movements. Early examples were Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song and Shaft (1971) telling the story of a black man striking back at representatives of white authority (Rooks, p. 82).
To better understand the nature of this genre, we only need to follow the career of the black actor Denzel Washington, one of America’s leading film stars. In 1975, Edward Zwick, a white Chicagoan Harvard graduate and recipient of a Rockefeller fellowship, became a directing fellow of the Ford-Rockefeller-funded American Film Institute (AFI). Following the “blaxploitation” pattern, Zwick in 1989 directed the film Glory, about a black regiment in the American Civil War, in which Denzel Washington played Trip, an escaped slave who joined the North’s Union forces against the South’s Confederates. In 1996, Zwick directed Courage Under Fire, again starring Denzel Washington as Lt.-Col. Serling who was tasked with finding the truth behind a covered-up incident during the Gulf War, in effect acting as a sort of “conscience” to society. Predictably enough, Washington later starred in the apocalyptic film The Book of Eli (2007) in which he played a wandering black prophet battling a dictatorial white leader.
It may be added that Zwick belongs to a class of film directors who like to cast whites in a negative light, while Denzel Washington’s favourite hero is the black supremacist leader Malcolm X, whom he played in a film of that title (1992) distributed by Time Warner subsidiary Warner Bros. The toxic implications of all this come to light when we consider that Malcolm X was the spokesman for the Nation of Islam (NOI), an African-American organization teaching that whites are “devils” and reportedly advising its followers to ritually kill whites (Tsoukalas, pp. 23-4).
On balance, it is evident that we are dealing with a subtle, yet systematic and pervasive form of propaganda (conducted by operatives of the white money power’s entertainment industry) in which the construction of black or mixed-race individuals as morally superior characters is skilfully combined with criticism of white society and, in particular, of white leadership. It follows that the election of the mixed-race Barack Obama as President of the United States – with the assistance of the same “progressive” elites and their financial backers – cannot be unconnected with the systematic propaganda that went before it.
Indeed, while the “Republican” Rockefellers had quietly prepared the ground from behind the scenes, it was the Democrat Bill Clinton who, in the early 1990s, officially promised an administration “that looked like America,” that is, like America’s Fabian Socialist-engineered multiracial society. Of particular interest is that in the very first year of Clinton’s presidency, the US weekly magazine Time published a special issue featuring a front-page computer image of the projected new mixed-race American (“The New Face of America: How Immigrants Are Shaping the World’s First Multicultural Society,” Time, 18 Nov. 1993), which can only be described as promotional literature for multiculturalism and multiracialism. Time is published by Time Inc., which also publishes the People magazine (which in 2012 named the mixed-race singer Beyoncé the “most beautiful woman in the world”) and is a part of Time Warner.
Time Warner is not only the largest media corporation in the world but is controlled by the Anglo-American Establishment. It is a member of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) which controls the Eurovision Song Contest, an operation promoting non-white immigrant groups in Europe. Its spin-off Warner Music Group (WMG) and subsidiaries are among the world’s largest recording corporations specializing in African-American music.
Time magazine itself was founded by Morgan-Rockefeller interests and, like The Economist in Britain, is an organ of the Anglo-American money power. For example, the chief editor of Time Inc. from 1964 to 1979 was Hedley W. Donovan, a Rhodes Scholar, trustee of the Ford and Carnegie (CEIP) foundations, as well as CFR and Trilateral Commission member. Time’s chief editor in 1993 was Jason McManus, a Rhodes Scholar and CFR member.
President Clinton himself was a fellow Rhodes Scholar and Trilateral Commission member. His wife Hillary was a disciple of radical left-winger Saul Alinsky, who taught his followers how to seize political power through a small core of disciplined activists, and wrote a sympathetic thesis on him (Remnick, p. 130). Unsurprisingly, Hillary has become one of the key figures who control the Democratic Party both directly (she became chairwoman of the Senate Democratic Steering and Coordination Committee in 2003) and indirectly, through her political action committee (HillPAC) which funds political allies. Another instrument of control is a network of “independent” fundraising groups controlled by Hillary’s ally, the left-wing radical plutocrat and long-time Rothschild collaborator George Soros (Horowitz & Poe, pp. 61-2).
Like his Rockefeller and other associates, Democratic financier and activist Soros also has a long history of backing non-white causes, from financing black students in South Africa to bankrolling pro-immigration groups in America (Sudetick & Soros, p. 13; Lengell, 2007). Not unexpectedly, therefore, having given more that $20 million to Democratic groups in 2004, he also spearheaded Wall Street support for presidential candidate Barack Obama. The latter had moved to Chicago in the early 1980s, when that city was run by its first African-American mayor and, like Clinton, became a faithful disciple of Alinsky as well as having Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis as political mentor. Obama became involved with the Developing Communities Project, an Alinsky outfit funded by liberal elements of Chicago’s Catholic Church and with the Gamaliel Foundation, an umbrella for Alinskian organizations which works in close collaboration with the African-American Leadership Commission. Obama was also a lecturer at the Rockefeller-created Chicago University and, significantly, a self-confessed Marxist (Slevin, 2007; Block, 2008; Horowitz & Laksin, pp. 19 ff.). In 2007 and 2008, Soros openly declared his preference for Obama and the radical change he would bring (“Clinton Enters ’08 Field, Fueling Race For Money,” New York Times, 21 Jan. 2007; “Soros, Obama and the Art of the Hedge,” NYT, 23 Jan. 2008).
Apart from Soros, there have been Wall Street figures among Obama’s backers whose financial institutions the reader will identify as familiar members of the Anglo-American Establishment: in 2012, one of these was Antonio Weiss, global head of investment banking at Lazard. With senior Lazard advisers like the Fabian Socialist Peter Mandelson, this is not in the least surprising. Moreover, the Rockefellers themselves may be indirectly linked with Barack Obama through associated interests like Soros, whose Tides outfits they are funding and, in particular, the banking company Goldman Sachs. In 2003, Thomas Healey, a retired partner of Goldman Sachs & Co., became a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation and chairman of its investment committee. Co-chairman of Goldman Sachs Jon Corzine was involved in the recruitment of Obama and in fund-raising for Obama’s Democratic Party. Goldman Sachs executives reportedly sent Obama sums of money exceeding those of all other companies (“Elections 2006; Corzine Has A Lot at Stake in His Stout Support of Menendez,” NYT, 3 Nov. 2006; “Obama’s Not-So-Hot Date with Wall Street,” NYT, 2 May, 2012). Obama also received a substantial share of financial backing from members of the Rothschild Clan (“Change,” NYT, 11 Nov. 2008).
As in Britain and other European countries, immigration in America is being promoted as a means of creating a growing pool of loyal supporters for left-wing elites and their subversive programmes. Thus, not only Western economies but also Western political systems have been made dependent on immigration. This provides further supporting evidence for our contention that Western society is becoming a society ruled by immigrants for immigrants. It is a contention confirmed with approval by the money power itself. As part of its Global Approach to Migration and Mobility programme (GAMM), the EU has stressed that although its immigration policy is meant to be of “mutual benefit” to both the EU and its non-European partners, it “should be migrant-centred” (European Commission’s Communication, COM(2011) 743, “The Global Approach to Migration and Mobility,” 18 Nov. 2011, p. 6).
Similarly, the money-power mouthpiece, the Time magazine, proudly announces that “our countries have been transforming themselves into immigrant societies.” The fact is that our countries have not been transforming themselves but have been transformed into immigrant societies by the money power and its political lackeys against the will and interests of the majority population. Statements like the above not only expose the money power’s duplicity but also reveal its true colours, clearly showing whose side it has chosen to take: the same Time article calls for America to “expand massively” the number of immigrants with skills it allegedly needs, ominously hailing America as a “universal nation” in the making (“Broken and Obsolete,” Time, 18 Jun. 2012).
In light of these facts, a clear money-driven pattern emerges, which shows that these developments are by no means the result of chance and even less of democratic processes, but of behind-the-scenes machinations by undemocratic elites with a warped sense of “philanthropy” and a pathological obsession with social engineering and world rule “for the public good.” It is a pattern with well-documented financial and ideological roots: Fabian mastermind Bernard Shaw, himself a leading light in the fields of media, entertainment and propaganda, and close friend of money interests like the Astors who had close links to the Morgan and Rockefeller groups, was one of the first to advocate the fusion of the races, declaring in the 1930s “I believe in fusion. The more fusion the better” and “The future is to the mongrel, not to the Junker [young German aristocrat].”
Like his ideological successors, Shaw did not stop at theory. He made practical proposals such as the introduction of collective farms which would operate like a sort of open-air universities and contribute to the mixing of the races (Holroyd, vol. 3, pp. 283-4). The Fabian leader’s proposals explain why throughout the Western world universities have become not only immigration and miscegenation factories but also nuclei of anti-white agitation: it was in the womb of these universities, inseminated with Socialist ideas and nourished by the self-serving largesse of “philanthropic” and “humanist” billionaires and their foundations, that the Black Consciousness, Black Liberation and Black Power movements were born (Rooks, pp. 83, 94).
Then as now, the unspoken implication was that the white race was to have no future – a proposition clearly echoed by Time’s “The New Face of America,” the Independent’s “The future of society is mixed,” the Daily Mail’s “Reggie’s the Voice of the future,” etc. The construction of black and mixed-race individuals as “stronger” and “more attractive” than white people leads to the same implications and the same results. Those who aim for what is “superior” and “desirable” also aim to eliminate what is “inferior” and “undesirable.” Thus the idealization and idolization of the black and mixed races goes hand in hand with a marked phobia of the white race. These two interdependent and mutually reinforcing tendencies must be identified as the primary symptoms of the collective psychopathology caused by Milner-Fabian ideology in Western society. The result of this condition is that we are currently witnessing what the Guardian has described as “the last days of the white world.”
The objective consideration of the available evidence enables us to trace the origins of these developments to the Fabian-instigated and billionaire-funded “New Age,” “counter-culture” and “student revolution” projects which culminated in the black movements mentioned above. In April 1969, the Detroit Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization (IFCO) convened a conference on interracial relations, called Black Economic Development Conference (BEDC). IFCO commissioned the black Marxist activist and community organizer James Forman, of Chicago, to write a report on the issues under discussion. Forman produced a document entitled “The Black Manifesto” demanding $500 million in reparations and stating “to win our demands we will have to declare war on the white Christian churches and Jewish synagogues.” In May, Forman read his manifesto in the Rockefeller-sponsored Riverside Church of New York, declaring, “Our fight is against racism, capitalism, and imperialism, and we are dedicated to building a socialist society inside the U.S. where the total means of production and distribution are in the hands of the state, and that must be led by black people” (Allitt, pp. 112-3).
Forman’s document allegedly sparked outrage among America’s white supporters of black causes. However, students of the Rockefeller-associated National Council of Churches (NCC) had been among the financial sponsors of the Detroit Conference that generated the document (Findlay, p. 130) and, in 1973, IFCO-leader Lucius Walker, who had organized the Conference, was appointed associate general secretary of NCC. Moreover, as detailed above, the money power continued to act in the spirit of Forman’s declaration, engineering four decades later the election of Barack Obama (also of Chicago and a disciple of the same tradition of “community organization,” i.e., Communism by another name) as President of the United States. What is more, Barack Obama is the son of a Muslim from Kenya, of the same name. The name Barack itself is an Arab and Muslim name. These facts cannot be unconnected with the Rockefeller’s interreligious and interracial brand of religion as sponsored by their Riverside Church (which sports a figure of prophet Mohammed) and associated outfits.
In 2011, two years after Obama’s assumption of power, the US national research agency Policy Link produced a “Map of America’s Tomorrow” showing that by 2042, white people will be a minority in America. Policy Link’s African-American founder and CEO Angela Glover Blackwell wrote: “as a nation, we can see our future and it is captured in the hopes of a 5-year-old Latina girl and a 7-year-old African American boy” (“America’s Tomorrow: Equity is the Answer,” at http://www.policylink.org). Blackwell is a former senior vice-president at the Rockefeller Foundation. Meanwhile, the Synergos Institute, a key outfit in the Rockefellers’ international endowments empire and parent organization of the exclusive Global Philanthropists Circle, claims to be “working to create a more just and equitable global society in which all individuals, families and communities have a meaningful opportunity to improve the quality of their lives for themselves and future generations” (http://www.synergos.org). Given that the same sources are proudly announcing that the future belongs to Latinos and African-Americans, this obviously excludes white individuals, families and communities.
Thus, while there is no doubt that movements aiming to impose white supremacy, such as National Socialism, have existed in the past, the present activities of non-white supremacist currents, notably initiated and led by elements of the Anglo-American Milner-Fabian Establishment, cannot be denied or ignored. They must be strongly condemned and combated by the international community and, particularly, by the UN, EU and other leading international organizations.
Finally, like its other pet slogan “we are all equal,” the Left’s claim “we are all Africans” – based on the disputed “Out-of-Africa Theory” – must be exposed as blatantly contradicting its own preferential treatment of non-whites, institutionalization of miscegenation and other entrenched tactics in its repertoire: if all humans are equal, why insist that mixed-race people are “stronger,” “more attractive,” etc. than others? This self-contradiction also removes the basis of the Left’s traditional opposition to past European colonization of Africa and other non-white territories: if all races are equal and all humans are African, why object to colonization? Were not white colonists as much at home in Africa (where they supposedly came from) as the native Africans? Likewise, if the colonization of America by Europeans was wrong, why is it right to now colonize it with Asians and blacks? Either colonization is bad and we object to all forms of it, or colonization is good and there is no objection to it. The Left’s objection to some forms of colonization (i.e., by whites) and simultaneous promotion of others (i.e., by non-whites) exposes its entire ideological system as a sham designed to enforce world domination by the self-serving international money interests behind it.
In sum, the aim of the international money power and its instruments of indoctrination, propaganda, manipulation and control (the political establishment and associated race-relations, media, entertainment and advertising industries) is to institutionalize mass immigration and miscegenation with a view to establishing a mixed-race (i.e., non-white) global population as a means of imposing world government. This anti-white culture which has infiltrated the whole of the Western world is the deliberate creation of a cult-like movement that believes in the self-sacrifice of the white race, its culture and civilization on the altar of globalism and world rule.
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 www2.warwick.ac.uk
Allitt, Patrick, Religion in America since 1945: A History, New York, NY, 2003.
Banton, Michael, Promoting racial harmony, Cambridge, 1985.
Block, Stephanie, “The Chickens Have Come Home to Roost: Obama, ACORN, and the Catholic Campaign for Human Development,” Catholic Citizens of Illinois, 28 Sept. 2008 http://www.catholiccitizens.org
Cole, Margaret, The Story of Fabian Socialism, London, 1961.
Collier, Peter & Horowitz, David, The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty, London, 1976.
Ferguson, Niall, The House of Rothschild, 2 vols., New York, NY, 2000.
Findlay, James F., Church People in the Struggle: The National Council of Churches and the Black Freedom Movement, 1950-1970, New York, NY, 1997.
Harley, John Eugene, International Understanding: Agencies Educating for a New World, Stanford, CA, 1931.
Holroyd, Michael, Bernard Shaw, London, 1991.
Horowitz, David & Laksin, Jacob, The New Leviathan: How the Left-Wing Money-Machine Shapes American Politics and Threatens America’s Future, New York, NY, 2012.
Horowitz, David & Poe, Richard, The Shadow Party: How Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party, Nashville, TN, 2006.
Lengell, Sean, “Foundations Bankrolling Advocates for Aliens,” Washington Times, 6 Jun. 2007.
Martin, Rose, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A., Chicago, IL, 1966.
Pugh, Patricia, Educate, Agitate, Organize: 100 Years of Fabian Socialism, London, 1984.
Quigley, Caroll, The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden, GSG & Associates, San Pedro, CA, 1981.
Ratiu, Ioan, The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy, Richmond, 2012.
Remnick, David, The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama, London & New York, 2010.
Rockefeller, David, Memoirs, New York, NY, 2002.
Rooks, Noliwe M., White Money/Black Power: The Surprising History of African American Studies and the Crisis of Race in Higher Education, Boston, MA, 2006.
Select Committee on the European Union, House of Lords, “Inquiry on Global Approach to Migration and Mobility, 20 Jun. 2012,” uncorrected transcript, published 22 June 2012.
Schenbeck, Lawrence, “Representing America, Instructing Europe: The Hampton Choir Tours Europe,” Black Music Research Journal, vol. 25, issue 1-2, 2005.
Shaw, G. B., “Socialism for Millionaires,” Fabian Tract No. 107, London, 1901.
Slevin, Peter, “For Clinton and Obama, a Common Ideological Touchstone,” Washington Post, 25 Mar. 2007.
Smoot, Dan, The Invisible Government, Boston, MA, 1962.
Sudetick, Chuck & Soros, George, The Philanthropy of George Soros: Building Open Societies, New York, NY, 2011.
Sutton, Antony C., Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, first published in New York, 1974, reprinted in Forest Row, East Sussex, 2011.
Tsoukalas, Steven, The Nation of Islam: Understanding the “Black Muslims,” Phillipsburg, NJ, 2001.
Refuting the conspiracy deniers: why the Fabian Conspiracy is a fact
by Ioan Ratiu, 08 Oct. 2020
Conspiracy is an agreement between several parties to engage in conduct that is either unlawful or morally reprehensible. It is an undeniable fact that conspiracies exist.
In a Fabian-Socialist context, the term “conspiracy” originated with the conspirators themselves. It was freely used by early Fabians like H. G. Wells (“The Open Conspiracy”) and their close collaborators. Lenin and other Russian communist leaders who enjoyed warm relations with the Fabians, were so fond of it that they carried on referring to their party as “conspiratorial” long after they had seized power.
Indeed, as amply shown by numerous critics, Fabian-Socialist strategy and tactics fit the accepted definition of conspiracy: historically, the Fabian Society has seen itself as an elite group that uses stealth as a means to establish socialism, i.e., nationalisation, abolition of private property and total state control over society. Ramsay MacDonald, an early Fabian, Labour Party ideologue and future Prime Minister of Britain, wrote that the state must “feel and think for the whole of society”.
Leading Fabians like H. G. Wells and G. B. Shaw were great admirers of totalitarian regimes such as Communist Russia to which they maintained close relations and which they regarded as a “new civilisation” to be emulated by Britain and the world. Unsurprisingly, Fabians have been accused of advancing communism under the guise of “social democracy”.
So, what do conspiracy deniers have to say in their defence? Vanesha Singh, assistant editor of the Fabian Society, writes in Fabian Review:
“As an overview, most Fabian conspiracies have right-wing undertones. They tend to be backed by very few facts and are fuelled, instead, by a staunch opposition to socialism.
“Websites also lay out, in immense detail, how the Fabian Society influences multinational corporations, or how it represents the financial interests of global institutions such as the United Nations.
“The theorists extrapolate from information found on the society’s own website: that we once had 200 members sitting in the House of Commons, is turned into evidence that we “write Labour’s policy statements, manifestos and party programmes”, for instance. Facts can be manipulated to suit warped versions of the truth …”.
To begin with, despite acknowledging that Fabian influence has been documented in great detail, it is clear that the above writer has little interest in examining the evidence. She begins her “defence” by implying that socialism is beyond reproach and that even the slightest criticism of it should be condemned and suppressed by all means available, including by labelling critics “right wing” and “conspiracy theorists”.
Needless to say, such tactics fail to exculpate the Fabians. Facts can be manipulated, but the facts themselves remain what they are and the facts, not “extrapolations” and “warped versions” of them, ought to be the focus of the debate.
The fact is that Fabians were instrumental in the founding of the Labour Party as a means of exerting influence on public policy and achieving their goal of establishing socialism. In their own words, they thought of themselves as Labour’s “brainworkers” and as the “thinking machine of British Socialism”. They wrote Labour’s constitution, manifestos and policy papers. Sidney Webb, a founder and leader of the Fabian Society and member of the Labour executive committee, co-authored the New Constitution of the Labour Party, Labour and the New Social Order (adopted as Labour’s manifesto) and War Aims of Labour, among other papers.
From inception, most Labour MPs were members of the Fabian Society. Labour leaders and Prime Ministers, in particular, were current or former members: Keir Hardie, Arthur Henderson, Ramsay MacDonald, Clement Attlee …. The Society did have a large number of members in the House of Commons as recently as 1997 and still does. With one or two exceptions, the last Labour governments, under Fabians Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (1997-2010), consisted of Fabians.
The same is true of the current Labour leadership where Fabians hold all the key positions: Keir Starmer (party leader), Angela Rayner (deputy leader), Anneliese Dodds (shadow chancellor), Lisa Nandy (shadow foreign secretary), Nick Thomas-Symonds (shadow home secretary) and a dozen others.
The Fabian Society’s own publications such as Fabian Essays (August 2015) point out that “throughout Labour’s history, the Fabian Society has been the place where the party debates its future”, while its website states that the Society is “at the forefront of developing ideas and public policy on the left” and “Fabian members include hundreds of politicians in Westminster, local government and the devolved (regional) administrations”. You simply cannot have hundreds of Fabians developing and implementing public policy at local, regional and national level and at the same time claim that Fabian influence is “conspiracy theory”.
By definition, Labour politicians are members of either the Fabian Society or Fabian-led Labour and many are both. They are often recruited from an early age by local Fabian university societies and then further indoctrinated, groomed and promoted into their thirties by the Fabian Society’s Young Fabians arm. They run much of the country even when Conservatives are in power. At the time of writing, the Mayors of UK’s ten largest cities – with the exception of Edinburgh – are Labour, starting with Fabians like London Mayor Sadiq Khan.
As in the US, Britain’s Fabian-dominated political left operates in close collaboration with certain financial groups with the same overarching agenda. The close links that clearly exist between Fabianism and finance are evidenced by leading Fabians like Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson being employed by multinational corporations like JP Morgan and Lazard and financial groups funding Fabian institutions like the London School of Economics, Imperial College London and many others. In turn, members of such institutions form government advisory bodies involved in public policy making, for example, the Covid-19 team consisting of experts from Fabian outfits like Imperial College and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).
Fabians and their socialist collaborators do sit on the boards of multinational corporations, influential think-tanks and intergovernmental organisations such as the United Nations. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is a former president of the Socialist International, an organisation originally founded by Karl Marx and re-established after the war by the Fabian Society for the purpose of coordinating international socialism and imposing world government.
Denis Healey, a leading Fabian who was involved in organising the Socialist International as well as the shadowy Bilderberg Group, another organisation aiming to establish world government, declared that a “single community throughout the world would be a good thing”. His fellow Fabian, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, has called for the creation of a world government to “tackle the Covid-19 epidemic”, among other things.
Inevitably, Fabian influence also reached America where the London Fabians founded associated societies in the early 1900s. Close links between like-minded organisations on both sides of the Atlantic, including Labour and the Democratic Party, remained strong. When Joe Biden ran for the Democratic presidential candidate nomination in 1987, he regularly cited Labour leader Neil Kinnock in his speeches, later calling him his “best ever speechwriter”.
Far from being some “warped version of the truth”, the Fabians’ far-reaching influence on public policy has become the subject of academic research. For example, in his study of the Fabian Society’s influence on Britain’s colonial policy, Professor Joseph Sneyder of Southeast Missouri State University has shown how leading Fabians like Arthur Creech Jones, Colonial Secretary and former chair of the Fabian Colonial Bureau, used imperial conferences attended by leaders of the British colonies to further their Fabian agendas, thus contributing to the Fabianisation of the British Empire.
As Snyder observes, “the efforts of the Fabians continue to be subject to criticism … scholars often characterize Fabian intentions as being somehow nefarious; less trustworthy and altruistic than what the Fabian rhetoric would have us believe”.
– J. M. Sneyder, “The Fabianization of the British Empire: Postwar Colonial Community Development in Kenia and Uganda, 1948 – 1956”, Britain and the World: Historical Journal of The British Scholar Society, March 2020, vol. 13, No 1, pp. 69-89
In light of the evidence, an inquiry into Fabian influence and its impact on democratic processes ought to be urgently conducted in order to settle the matter in an objective and impartial manner. Debate and discussion must be encouraged by politicians and academics alike. Fabians should welcome, not oppose this, if they have nothing to hide.
From around the Web:
— Copyright © 2012-2020 Last updated on 31/10/2020 —