The Fabian Society Wants War, and Is Leading Labour to the Drill Hall

The Fabian Society wants war, and is leading Labour to the drill hall

NIALL MCCRAE

The Guardian newspaper has become one of the shrillest clarion calls for war. In yesterday’s edition, regular columnist Gaby Hinsliff wrote that the UK is already at war, and that the need for rearmament is urgent. The enemy, of course, is Russia. There has been much preparation for coming conflict by the political establishment, particularly by a Labour cabinet dominated by members of the Fabian Society, and a coterie of bought journalists.

Integrity Initiative

A few years ago Carole Cadwalladr, the Observer journalist, admitted that she had absolutely no evidence that Arron Banks’ Leave.EU campaign was surreptitiously aided by the Kremlin. Full legal costs, crowd-funded by Remainers, were awarded to Banks. Yet Cadwalladr seemed remarkably jolly. Was there more to this story than a lone conjecturer?

In 2018, Cadwalladr and her Observer colleague Nick Cohen, alongside David Aaronovitch from the Times and James Ball of Buzzfeed, spoke at a two-day conference titled ‘Tackling Tools of Malign Influence – Supporting 21st Century Journalism’. This was organised by Integrity Initiative, a programme established in 2015 by the Institute of Statecraft and the Free University of Brussels to tackle the disinformation threat posed by Russia. The Institute of Statecraft, a think-tank largely funded by the British government, was mysteriously based at a derelict Victorian mill in Fife.

Integrity Initiative targeted public figures with perceived Russian sympathies. When veteran backbencher Jeremy Corbyn unexpectedly became leader of the Labour Party, this caused concern for the security services. Corbyn’s persistent criticism of Britain and the West did not trouble his legions of young supporters, and Labour grew to the largest political party membership in Europe. Although his anachronistic socialist beliefs were out of tune with middle England, many respected Corbyn as an authentic politician. He almost won the 2017 general election called by Theresa May, whose parliamentary Conservative Party was tearing itself apart on the Brexit impasse.

When a Russian dissident was reportedly poisoned in Salisbury, Corbyn was accused of giving succour to Vladimir Putin. Corbyn likened the haste to blame Russia to the dossier on ‘weapons of mass destruction’ that led to the UK waging war on Iraq. The normally Labour-supporting Guardian was particularly critical of Corbyn. Editorial board member Natalie Nougayrede was retweeted by Integrity Initiative on posting a scathing editorial (which perhaps she wrote) with the comment ‘shameful Corbyn & Co reaction to Russia behaviour & chemical weapon use’. Cadwalladr was retweeted on claiming that ‘Labour has a Russia problem’ and that Corbyn’s director of communications Seamus Milne’s ‘support for Putin has made him a Russian propaganda tool’, as was Cohen’s message that ‘Labour is led by Putin fans’.

Integrity Initiative became a national controversy in 2018, when the left-wing Scottish tabloid newspaper Sunday Mail revealed the extent of the social media campaign against Jeremy Corbyn. Chris Williamson, a Corbyn ally (later expelled from Labour for alleged anti-Semitism), demanded an official enquiry into a state-funded organisation’s involvement in ‘denigration of the Labour party and Jeremy Corbyn’. The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) launched an inquiry into the Institute for Statecraft. Adverse publicity led to Integrity Initiative deleting its entire website content except the cover page. In a damning report in 2019, the OSCR ruled that Institute of Statecraft trustees had failed in oversight of Integrity Initiative’s Twitter account.

David Miller, professor of political sociology at the University of Bristol, remarked: –

The OSCR report is extraordinary for the sheer number of criticisms made of the Institute. Trustees trousered cash for personal advantage, its charitable objects were not charitable, its work on disinformation was partisan and not a charitable purpose, there was no public benefit and trustees failed in their duty of care and oversight. In retrospect, the whole project seems like it was little more than a front for a secretive military intelligence grouping. A sort of UK troll farm.

Integrity Initiative was a reversal in the information war. Instead of manipulating the news it made news of itself, and the authorities would be more careful in future.

The Times and Guardian were riddled with Integrity Initiative, but the name never appeared in any articles. Journalists aligned with Integrity Initiative saw Russian mischief in any political upheaval. With her elaborate double-page diagram in the Observer drawing tortuous links between Putin, Farage, Banks and other Leave campaigners, Cadwalladr was a heroine of the anti-Brexit campaign. She was awarded the prestigious Orwell Prize for Journalism. However, this story transpired as no more credible than the American ‘deep state’ attempt to blame Donald Trump’s election on a plot by Putin.

Meanwhile, Putin continued to be cast as bogeyman, and when Russian forces invade Ukraine in 2022 after years of provocation by the Western military and political wings of NATO and the EU, the die was cast. But why are politicians and commentators so keen for war, rather than diplomacy, sanctions and other means of geopolitical intervention? I suspect that this is not really about Russia, but globalist weeding of the human garden.

The misanthropic project of the Fabian Society

A hundred years ago, Russia was admired by the progressive intelligentsia. Playwright George Bernard Shaw was born in Dublin in 1856, moving to London aged 20. Struggling to make ends meet, in 1884 he joined the Fabian Society, and deployed his wit as an open-air speaker. By the 1920s he was simultaneously a popular playwright and a fervent activist in the cause of socialism. He won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1925, although the Pears’ Cyclopaedia of the following year described his plays as ‘tantalising brilliant and effective in parts, but just as tantalisingly inefficient as dramatic entireties’. Among his widely-read political works was The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism, which made Marxism accessible to millions.

The British Left was mesmerised by the Russian communist venture, but historians have too readily excused this as naïve idealism. The likes of George Lansbury and Jimmy Maxton lauded not only the purportedly egalitarian system, but also the ruthless eradication of ‘counter-revolutionaries’. The end justified the means: Stalin was building a socialist Utopia, and totalitarian methods were necessary. In his startling tome Labour and the Gulag, Giles Udy delved into the dark depths of pro-Soviet apologia in the interwar years. He described how the Labour government fed the Russian timber trade, despite clear evidence of mass convict labour and unconscionable conditions in the camps of the frozen north. While other countries rejected the fruits of forced lumbering, convoys of British vessels arrived at Archangel every day. Effectively, Stalin’s economy was built on slave labour with a sure buyer in Westminster.

Priming this immoral trade, the Soviet Union had plenty of enthusiasts in British academe, not least at the London School of Economics, which had opened in 1921. The most prominent founder was Shaw, a keen propagandist for the Soviet Union who urged a Bolshevik-style revolution in Britain. As Udy noted, ‘little-known or mentioned today’, Shaw ‘had a brutal and cruel streak to which the written record abundantly attests’. Stalin, he believed, was following an uncompromising Fabian approach to communism. Defending execution of political criminals, Shaw remarked: ‘a well-kept garden must be weeded’.

In 1931 Shaw visited Moscow, where he was fêted and all his preconceptions confirmed. Here was the future for mankind: rationally planned, and unsentimental. For Shaw, the workshy deserved to be sent to the gulag, where their labour would be exploited and exhausted. For a conservative thinker or politician to have used the term ‘social parasites’ would never be forgiven, but Shaw is strangely excused. When the show trials began in Moscow in 1937, Western sympathies were severely tested: here were pioneers and principal figures of the Soviet Union admitting guilt for incredible crimes, surely under duress. Shaw, however, held the line: –

On the top of the ladder is a very trying place for old revolutionists who have had no administrative experience…They often have to be pushed off the ladder, with a rope around their neck.

Heinous crimes against humanity were acceptable to Shaw, who dismissed the sanctity of life. Indeed, a major appeal of communism was its godlessness and hostility to Christian mores. Like Richard Dawkins today, Shaw was a militant atheist, who wanted children of religious parents removed to orphanages. Back in 1910, he considered how society could dispose of large numbers of undesirable people in the most efficient way: ‘I appeal to the chemists to discover a human gas that will instantly and painlessly’. As well as the mentally and physically handicapped, this ‘lethal chamber’ would have use in exterminating antisocial elements, including political opponents.

How can a man of such abhorrent misanthropy be celebrated? Tony Blair, in his address at the unveiling of a commemorative plaque at the LSE in 2006, said that ‘a lot of the values that the Fabians and George Bernard Shaw stood for would be very recognisable, at least I hope they would, in today’s Labour Party’. There is a tendency to characterise eugenics as right-wing racism (the great polymath Francis Galton has been unceremoniously erased by the nearby University of College London), but calls for sterilisation and euthanasia mostly came from the same political and intellectual sources of support for the Soviet experiment: these are progressive beliefs of useful idiots for the globalists’ depopulation agenda. .

The coming cull

Inspiration for Hinsliff’s Guardian article came from a new report by the Fabian Society (for whom Hinsliff has contributed to several debates and publications). The manifesto Common Endeavour: Building a Stronger Britain includes chapters from several Labour MPs, including Luke Murphy on ‘Building the Climate Consensus’, Andrew Levin on ‘The Failure of Brexit’ (yawn), and of relevance here – Alek Baker and Calvin Bailey on ‘Rearming Britain’.

The constituencies of the two authors are interesting: Baker serves the army town of Aldershot, while Baily represents the outer-London seat of Leyton & Wanstead. For sure, Baker’s barracks are training for war, but it is less certain how a part of London with a declining white working-class community and an overwhelming influx from Africa and Asia will be expected to contribute. Bailey, a former RAF wing commander, wants more manpower, but will immigrants be conscripted alongside their white neighbours? Perhaps ‘woke’ activists who chant ‘refugees welcome here’ will call for exemption for people who have fled war zones.

‘Rearming Britain’ identifies Russia as the main threat (rather than the USA, which has launched missiles at eight countries since breakfast). Hyperbole lurks throughout the text: ‘a vast and devastating war on Europe’ is actually being fought on the eastern edge of Ukraine (much further away than Serbia, which NATO forces bombed mercilessly in the 1990s).

Bailey and Baker, aware that the USA is currently an unreliable partner in NATO, enthuse on the potential of pan-European military might: ‘a multilateral approach to defence’, ‘shared European hard power’, and an assertion that ‘the UK’s security is inseparable from that of our European neighbours’. For whatever EU fuhrer Ursula von der Leyen orders, British youth must march in line.

The authors emphasise that military spending must be substantially increased. One reason is the escalating cost of equipment and munitions, and also the need for rapid technological pursuit of the new weapons of drones and robotics. They conclude: –

The threats we face are real and immediate. The question is whether we are willing to match them with the scale of response required. Now is the moment to do so.

For Hinsliff, the drumbeat is compelling. She also referred to the Strategic Defence Review, published a year ago. Commissioned by former Labour defence secretary George Robertson, this review urged the UK to step up from the counter-insurgency and anti-terrorism interventions of recent decades to face a ‘well-armed country’.

Warning of a new blitz on London in the form of a ‘hybrid’ attack, or drones flying through Whitehall windows, Hinsliff describes war as five fronts for enemy onslaught: the political leadership, critical infrastructure, food and fuel supply, civilians and the armed forces. All but the last are already being stuck; for example, by submarines cutting communication cables. The Russians are not simply coming; they are already biting our toes, and we need to do more than flinching.

Meanwhile, Hinsliff attributes the looming fuel crisis to the rogue state of Iran, rather than the instigator of the conflict around the Persian Gulf. The Strait of Hormuz was open before Trump started bombing. But Iran acts as reinforcement to the militaristic rush – a false-flag fire at a synagogue may be all that is needed to unleash World War Three.

Keir Starmer’s government, Hinsliff opines, should be ‘shoring up the public realm to cope in a crisis, and forging a more mutually trusting and tolerant society that is resilient to extremism’. After preaching ad nauseum against division and hate, the Guardian seeks the ultimate division and hate through war. The newspaper that has persistently vilified patriots as ‘far-right’ or ‘neo-Nazi’ is now a recruiting sergeant. England expects….

The likes of Hinsliff think of the army in the same way that they think of society, as a multicultural melting pot. .Perhaps the indoctrinated younger generations will be persuaded to defend ‘British values’ of diversity, tolerance and inclusion, with sanitary products and prayer mats in the trenches. Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Putin?

War is an unwritten method of the Fabian Society, which has always been the driving force behind the Labour movement. The working class has been deceived, but any have awakened to the lie of cradle-to-the-grave benevolence, and have no desire to fight for the corrupt British establishment (or its Zionist puppet master).

The real purpose of war, albeit counter-intuitively, is global government. And that entails the elite saving the planet for themselves, while pursuing the most radical means of depopulation. Net Zero will slowly starve the minions, but war will be sudden carnage. The wolf in sheep’s clothing has licked its lips.

---

This article (The Fabian Society wants war, and is leading Labour to the drill hall) was created and published by Niall McCrae and is republished here under “Fair Use”

Featured image: Sky News

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.