Chapter 3 from the book “The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy” by Ioan Ratiu, 2012. Download in Word format.

---

The Labour Party is the largest, most powerful and most dangerous group to have infiltrated British society and taken over political power in modern history. Here is why everything about the Labour Party is deceptive, anti-democratic and anti-British.

Content

• The Fabian roots of the Labour Party
• History of the Labour Party
• Labour’s utter betrayal of the country
• Labour and the Islamization of Europe
• Labour’s Yugoslavia War
• Labour’s Afghanistan War
• Labour’s Iraq War
• Labour and World Government
• References

The Fabian roots of the Labour Party

The Labour Party has its roots in Fabian Socialism, a subversive ideology inspired by Marxism which aims to create a totalitarian New World Order – Labour leaders have openly declared that “the Labour Party will not abandon, now or ever, the vision of a New World Order” (Labour Party Annual Conference Report, 1939) — while claiming to promote “social justice”, “welfare”, “prosperity”, etc. [*]

[*] Му note.
The Fabian Society’s plan to create a totalitarian New World Order was exposed by George Orwell in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. Written with the Fabian Society’s 1OOth anniversary in mind, this was one of the few works by an ex-Fabian criticizing Fabian Socialism (referred to as “English Socialism” or “lngSoc” in the book).

Orwell’s book betrays an intimate knowledge of the Fabian movement, its leadership, methods and aims, enabling it to make uncannily accurate predictions about a future Fabian-controlled society. (See Chapter 2. The Fabian Conspiracy.)

For Orwell’s membership in Fabian organizations, see Rose Martin, “Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A.”, p. 466, Chicago, IL, 1966.
End of my note.

The Labour Party was created for the purpose of controlling the working classes by the Fabian Society, a semi-secret private organization with links to financial and industrial interests, whose leaders covertly advocated dictatorship while ostensibly promoting “democracy” and continues to be controlled by the Fabian Society. (See chapter 2, “The Fabian Conspiracy“.)

The identity of the Labour hierarchy with the Fabian Society (FS) is evident from the fact that FS membership increases dramatically,

• from only 3 per cent in the general Labour membership
• to about 50 per cent among Labour MPs,
• rising to nearly 100 per cent among Labour Leaders and Prime Ministers.

Indeed, the FS:

• trains Young Fabians (the Society’s under-31s section) to become Labour MPs (about half of whom have been FS members from 1945),
• provides leaders and PMs to the party (all or almost all Labour Leaders, Deputy Leaders and Prime Ministers have been Fabian Society members from inception),
• organizes its conferences, writes its programmes and manifestos and leads its election campaigns.

The Fabian Society has also been able to nominate candidates for the Labour Party leadership and influence their election through the party’s electoral college which included Fabian MPs and party members.

In 1994, the Fabian Society (FS) and, in particular, Young Fabians activists, backed Tony Blair, a long-time FS member (who had recently joined the World Economic Forum’s “Global Leaders of Tomorrow“), in his bid for the Labour Party leadership.

The Fabian Society also devised the “New Labour” brand which was central to Labour’s election campaign under Blair and published the latter’s pamphlet “The Third Way” after the election.

In the 2010 leadership contest, all key candidates (Ed Miliband, David Miliband, Ed Balls and Andy Burnham) were Fabian Society (FS) members, thus ensuring that a Fabian backed by the Society (Ed Miliband) became leader.

In addition, the party is kept on a Fabian course through leading Fabians like:

• FS general secretary Dianne Hayter sitting on its executive and policy forum;
• “special advisers” like Michael Jacobs (FS general secretary) and Ed Balls (FS chairman) who dominated the Treasury’s Council of Economic Advisers under the last Labour regime;
• and Fabian pressure groups like Compass and Progress.

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

In particular, Labour’s policy of state-sponsored mass immigration has resulted in lower wages and higher living costs, exposing it as a fraudulent organization working against the interests of the British working classes whom it falsely claims to represent.

History of the Labour Party

In the late 1880s, the Fabian Society together with other Marxistinspired organizations like the Social Democratic Federation (SDF, founded in 1881), began to influence the labour movement and campaign for the formation of a separate labour party, creating the Independent Labour Party (ILP) in 1893.

In 1900, the Fabian Society, the SDF, ILP and a number of trade unions established a Labour Representation Committee (LRC).

In 1903, the LRC’s Fabian leadership made a secret pact with the Liberal Party against the Conservatives. This enabled it to win 29 seats in the 1906 general elections, after which it renamed its organization The Labour Party.

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

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

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

• In 1931, Sidney Webb declared his belief that the Soviet Union was a model Fabian State (Cole, p. 255).

• In 1932, Webb and his wife Beatrice visited the Soviet Union and published a massive study eulogizing Stalin’s Communist regime as a “new civilization” to be emulated by the world (Soviet Communism: A New Civilization, 1935).

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

The creation of a Nanny state

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

On its election to office in 1945, the Labour government under Fabian PM Clement Attlee introduced the Beveridge Plan which created the “cradle to grave” welfare or Nanny state in order to sugarcoat Socialism and deflect attention from its real agenda.

This agenda was the nationalization of industries and services, i.e., transfer of control to a self-appointed clique, in imitation of the Soviet model and the dismantling of the British Empire in preparation for the establishment of a Socialist world government.

(Despite his outward appearance, William Beveridge, judging by his book Power and Influence and other evidence, was as self-promoting and power-obsessed as the Fabian Society who co-authored his Plan.)

Role in the creation of the UN and NATO

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

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

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

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

The creation of the Socialist International

At the same time, the Labour Party (and the Fabian masterminds behind it) was responsible for re-establishing European Socialism by reorganizing Socialist parties in Allied-occupied Germany and elsewhere and by setting up the Socialist International (SI, headquartered in London) as an instrument for coordinating, controlling and promoting International Socialism with a view to establishing world government.

Well into the 1960s, the Labour Party (under Fabian Harold Wilson) promoted the idea of the Soviet Union — which included concentration camps and forced labour for political prisoners — as a superior social and economic model to be emulated by Britain (Callaghan, p. 156).

While its rhetoric has become more guarded and sophisticated, the Labour Party’s policies continue to be dictated by the old Socialist ideology of its Fabian founders (represented by Fabians like Ed Miliband) which explains the catastrophic results Labour governments have had on Britain and the world.

Labour’s utter betrayal of the country

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

The Economy under Labour

Labour’s economic policies are devised by its Fabian masterminds and promoted through Fabian outfits like the:

• London School of Economics (LSE);
• Royal Economic Society (RES);
• National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) and
• Social Research Council (ESRC).

They were already exposed as bogus in the 1950s, following its introduction of Marxist-inspired measures such as the nationalization of coal, iron and steel industries.

The policies imposed by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown following the Labour take-over of 1997 resulted in the longest and deepest recession since World War II, creating an unprecedented budget deficit of £90 billion in 2008/09.

The apparent economic “boom” of the first years of Labour rule turned out to be a typical Labour con based on a corrupt credit system. As conceded by the Guardian, not only is the deterioration of the public finances unprecedented, but it is due to the credit crunch which began in 2007 (“UK budget deficit hits record £90bn”, 22 Apr. 2009).

The Labour-created economic disaster left three million people unemployed.

In the face of the facts Labour leader Ed Miliband was forced to declare that his party “take responsibility for the financial crisis that took place in 2007-2008” (“Miliband: We Take Responsibility for Crash”, Sky News, 28 Sept. 2011; p. 507).

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

Labour’s Keynesian (i.e., Fabian) policy of perpetual deficit spending also renders the economy increasingly dependent on international finance, strengthening the hand of the corporate elites whose interests the Labour party covertly represents.

The Education System under Labour

The education system in Britain has been under Labour control since 1934 when the Labour Party took control of the London County Council — responsible for elementary and secondary schools — and similar bodies across the country. It had earlier seized control in universities and other institutions, notably, Fabian-created ones from LSE to Imperial College London.

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

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

The breakdown of British society under Labour

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

Like Marx, early Labour leaders such as Bernard Shaw were outspoken opponents of the family. As admitted by Tony Blair, “the old left tended to ignore the importance of the family” (Rentoul, p. 201). Unfortunately for the long-suffering British people, the “new” Left changed its policies about as much as leopards change their spots.

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

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

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

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

The rising crime wave under Labour

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

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

Gavin Lockhart, head of Policy Exchange’s crime and justice unit has said:

“After a decade of unprecedented spending on policing, courts and prisons, England and Wales have a recorded crime rate twice that of the European average” (“UK failing on causes of crime”, BBC News, 11 May 2009).

In particular, religion-motivated extremism became a new cause of crime under Labour.

Immigration under Labour

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

In 1997-2010, Labour’s Blair-Brown regime imposed an official, deliberate and systematic policy of mass immigration, while blatantly lying about the true extent of immigration (“Labour lied to public about immigration, says Ed Miliband’s aide Lord Glasman”, Daily Telegraph, 17 Apr. 2011).

Labour’s policy of mass immigration, that is, deliberate and systematic import of cheap labour from abroad, resulted in wages being kept artificially down and, in particular, in the replacement of Britain’s indigenous population with immigrants, clearly exposing Labourism — a system ostensibly representing the British working class — as a fraudulent, indeed criminal, system.

Multiculturalism under Labour

In 1966, Labour Home Secretary and future President of the European Commission, Roy Jenkins, initiated a shift in government policy from assimilation of immigrants to statepromoted “integration accompanied by cultural diversity” or multiculturalism (Patterson, p. 113). The dishonest intent of Jenkins’ actions is evident from the fact that he deliberately waited until after the elections (in which Labour won an increased majority) to start promoting this change of policy (Banton, p. 71).

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

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

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

“Anti-racism” under Labour

Labour’s immigration policies led to the transformation of Britain into a multiracial society. The resulting inter-racial tensions were then used by Labour politicians to win the votes of immigrant communities and muster support for its anti-majority policies.

“Anti-racism” has become Labour’s tool of choice for suppressing the rights of the indigenous population (Lewis, pp. 137 ff.), in effect becoming a new form of racism directed against the white majority.

The suppression of Christianity under Labour

Christianity has always been a key target for Socialist subversion and the Labour Party had sought to infiltrate, subvert and distort Christian religion from the time of Keir Hardie and other early Labour leaders. Labour’s subsequent aggressive promotion of atheism (disguised as “secularism’”) as well as non-Christian cultures and religions, notably Islam, inevitably led to the growing suppression of Christianity.

The Labour regime of 1997-2010, in particular, was defined by a marked rise in anti-Christian incidents including the banning of carol singing and Nativity plays in schools by left-wing local councils and headteachers (Henry & Miller, 2007).

In light of the facts, Church leaders were forced to admit that Christians have become “too soft” and allow others to “walk over them” (Whitehead, 2010). To this deplorable situation the Left-dominated Church itself has contributed in no small measure.For, while Muslim preachers tell their congregations to stand up and fight for their faith, Christians have been told, for decades, to be “tolerant”, “inclusive” and to put others first.

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

The idea that gained ground under Labour was that Islamic extremism could be combated by allowing moderate Muslims to play a greater role in local governments, police and armed forces and other key sections of British society.

In reality, the Labour policies of:

• appointing Muslims to key positions in the Labour Party, Ministry of Justice, Home Office (responsible for immigration and asylum) and Social Services;
• uncontrolled and unlimited immigration from Islamic countries, especially Pakistan;
• shambolic student visa system;
• mandatory multiculturalism;
• systematic sponsorship of Islamic schools, cultural centres, charities and mosques, etc.,

enabled Islamic extremist organizations to infiltrate all sections of British society and obtain support, funds and recruits for their anti-British activities.

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

In 2000, Tony Blair infamously stated in an interview with Muslim News:

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

As noted earlier, in August 2006, Tony Blair praised the Koran as “progressive” and Muslim-occupied countries as “the standardbearers of tolerance” (Speech to the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles, 1 Aug. 2006; news.bbc.co.uk).

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

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

As revealed by a Policy Exchange report in 2009, £90 million spent on “fighting Islamic extremism” actually went to groups linked to extremist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Jamaat-e Islami in Pakistan. Other beneficiaries included the Muslim Council of Britain, the United Kingdom Islamic Mission and the Islamic Society of Britain.

In an attempt to win Muslim votes, in Luton alone the Home Office project “Preventing Violent Extremism” funded seven Muslim centres (“How the Government pays Muslims to vote Labour”, Daily Telegraph, 17 March 2009). At the same time, groups linked to Islamic terrorism were funded by left-wing charities like the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust (Barrett & Mendick, 2014).

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

The Labour regime’s cooperation with Islamic extremists

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

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

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

In 2004, the UK Foreign Office (headed by Jack Straw) set up the Engaging with the Islamic World (EIW) Group consisting of 18 civil servants, including Muslims, and led by the pro-Muslim Frances Guy.

As noted in Chapter 10 Islamization, as Ambassador to Lebanon, Guy later praised Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, a supporter of Iran with links to Hezbollah terrorists, as a “true man of religion”, adding that the world needed more like him.

In 2007, the Foreign Office merged EIW with its Counter Terrorism (CT) programme to form the “Countering Terrorism and Radicalization Programme”.

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

In July 2006, the Foreign Office (headed by Margaret Beckett) sponsored a large gathering of European Islamist organizations in Turkey which concluded that all Muslims in Europe should abide by the Koran as a means of “enriching Europe” and setting an example for non-Muslims to follow (Pargeter, pp. 198-9; Topkapi Declaration, 2 Jul. 2006, at http//-ammanmessage.com).

This strategy even applies to the British campaign in Afghanistan. For example, in 2008 Labour Government plans were exposed for intending to build a secret military training camp for thousands of Taliban fighters to “make them swap sides” (“Revealed: British plan to build training camp for Taliban fighters in Afghanistan”, Independent, 4 Feb. 2008).

In Britain, the established policy of intelligence services and police forces has been to collaborate with some extremists in order to keep other extremists down. Inevitably, the extremists are playing their own games with the intelligence services, the overall result being that Islamic extremists and State authorities are collaborating with each other against the interests, safety and security of the British people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labour and the Islamization of Europe

Already in the 70s, in line with International Monetary Fund (IMF) agendas, Labour Chancellor Denis Healey had promoted European dependence on Islamic investments and loans.

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

It will be recalled that in January 2006, quoting the Sufi Sheikh Ba, Ambassador Frances Guy declared that bringing Turkey into the European Union was a way of “binding” the two religions together to prove that there was no clash of civilizations.

In November 2007, at the Opening Ceremony at the Bruges Campus, College of Europe, Bruges, Labour Foreign Secretary David Miliband spoke in favour of “unbreakable ties” with Europe’s Muslim neighbour countries and inclusion of Turkey, the Middle East and North Africa in Europe (www.coleurope.eu also BBC News, 15 Nov. 2007).

Labour’s Yugoslavia War

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

The irony is that while U.S. and British forces were “saving” Kosovo Muslims from the Serbs, Muslim terrorist organizations like Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda were planning attacks on US and British targets.

These plans — involving attacks on the New York Trade Center and the Pentagon — were carried out on 7 Nov 2001 and led to the next two conflicts.

Labour’s Afghanistan War

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

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

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

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

Indeed, limited Western wars in Afghanistan are unwinnable when the enemy can move freely between zones of operation in Afghanistan and guerrilla bases in Pakistan (via an extensive network of cross-border tunnels) and receives unlimited supplies of cash, arms and recruits from outside. This is even more the case when the Western camp lacks the moral and political will to win.

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

Labour’s Iraq War

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

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

1. The war was waged on false pretexts.

2. The true reasons behind the removal of Saddam Hussein were US-British oil interests and expansionist ambitions in the region which were opposed by Saddam and his regime: apart from Hunt Oil (connected with President George W. Bush), the main oil interests in post-war Iraq are the Rockefellers (Exxon, Chevron), the Rothschilds (Shell, Genel), British Petroleum (BP) and Communist China (CNPC).

It is worthwhile recalling at this point that Tony Blair was a member of the “Global Lighthouse Network” (GLT) group which represented the oil interests behind the World Economic Forum (WEF).

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

4. Britain’s military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq has been a complete failure for two reasons.

First, these countries have traditional Muslim populations that do not want to live according to Western “democratic values” (even the illiterate and the uneducated can see that modern Western society has lost its way).

Second, Afghanistan and Iraq are the wrong targets. The correct targets are long-time exporters of terrorism and Islamic revolution, such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iran.

While secondary elements in the global terrorist network (like Afghanistan) are being targeted for reasons of political expediency and propaganda, the primary elements — Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc. — are treated as untouchable and above international law, and even as “friends and allies in the fight against terror”!

5. It is an established fact that fighting foreign wars is often used to deflect attention from what is happening at home. Labour’s wars clearly belong to this category:

• the displacement of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo served to cover up the displacement of even larger numbers of indigenous Britons in their own country;
• the “fight for freedom and democracy” in Afghanistan and Iraq served to cover up the abolition of freedom and democracy in Britain;
• the “war on terror” served to cover up the gradual take-over of Britain by “moderate” Islam, etc.

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

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

In the final analysis, like its “wars for democracy”, Labour’s “war on terror” only served to deflect the attention of both military and general public from the anti-democratic and anti-British policies of the Labour regime at home.

Labour and World Government

Labour’s policies can only be fully understood when examined against the background of its overarching objective of establishing a Socialist World Government. This objective is evident from the party’s election manifestos calling in unambiguous terms for:

• a “Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain” (1945),
• a “Socialist Europe” (1975) and, in particular,
• a “(Socialist) World Government”: “For us world government is the final objective and the United Nations the chosen instrument” (1964).

As the same manifestos make clear, Labour’s foreign policy has been “a logical extension of our work at home” (1983). [*]

[*] Му note.
The creation of a world government is the goal not only of the British Labour Party but of all left-wing parties within the Socialist International. This was explicitly stated in the declaration adopted at the 1962 Oslo Conference of the Socialist International:

“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… Membership of the United Nations must be made universal…”

Citizens of various countries who vote for left-wing parties must understand that they are, in fact, supporting:

1. The abolition of their state’s sovereignty in favor of the UN;
2. The transfer of control of their country to the international capitalist groups behind the UN;
3. The transformation of their country into an instrument of international money power.

Sources:
1) The World Today: The Socialist Perspective, Declaration of the Socialist International endorsed at the Council Conference held in Oslo on 2-4 June 1962.
2) Chapter 6. The UN Scam.
End of my note.

In line with this objective, leading Labourites like Morgan Phillips and Denis Healey were instrumental in the creation of organizations admittedly aiming to establish world government, such as the Socialist International and the Bilderberg Group.

All this exposes the Labour Party as an Organization representing the interests of the international money power which bankrolled Labour governments from the 1940s to the 70s through outfits like the IMF (Martin, pp. 77, 109; p. 504, below).

Major Labour donors include Lord Levy, a Rothschild-connected entertainment magnate, and Martin Taylor of Nevsky Capital, a creation of the Barings-Rothschild outfit Thames River Capital.

References

Banton, Michael, Promoting racial harmony, Cambridge, 1985.
Barrett, David and Mendick, Robert, “Mainstream charities have donated thousands to Islamic group fronted by terrorism suspects”, Daily Telegraph, 1 Mar. 2014.
Callaghan, John, The Labour Party and Foreign Policy: A History, Abingdon, Oxon, 2007.
Cole, Margaret, The Story of Fabian Socialism, London, 1961.
Griffin, G. Edward, The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations, Belmont, MA, 1964.
Henry, Julie and Miller, Vikki, “Schools nativity plays under threat’, Daily Telegraph, 2 Dec. 2007.
Lewis, Russell, Anti-Racism: A Mania Exposed, London, 1988.
Martin, Rose, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A., Chicago, IL, 1966.
Pargeter, Alison, The New Frontiers of Jihad: Radical Islam in Europe, London, 2008.
Patterson, Sheila, Immigration and Race Relations in Britain 1960-1967, London, 1969.
Pugh, Patricia, Educate, Agitate, Organize: 100 Years of Fabian Socialism, London, 1984.
Rentoul, John, Tony Blair, Prime Minister, London, 2001.
Whitehead, Tom, “Christians are ‘too soft’ says former Archbishop of Canterbury”, Daily Telegraph, 7 Jan. 2010.
Wollheim, Richard, “Socialism and Culture”, Fabian Tract No. 331, London, 1961.