The origins of the West's socialist trajectory

Text of a talk delivered at BizNews' 8th annual conference

[Video of talk here. Link to Q&A with Alec Hogg here.]

It’s been five years since I first addressed this audience. [That talk here, with Q&A part one and two.] The longest, harshest lockdown in the world had just been loosened up, but a mask mandate was still in place, so as I began I looked over a sea of heads, not faces. As the slides rolled behind me, detailing the facts and figures that proved that the covid phenomenon was a complete and utter scam, one by one, those masks started to come off. It was an audience reaction the likes of which I don’t expect ever to encounter again, but today I’m hoping to see metaphorical masks come off and to enjoy the same level of engagement with you afterwards.

Socialism. Although it can be argued to entail many other things, it is properly defined by extensive ownership of assets by the state. Ownership of an asset can arise from an instrument like a title deed or share certificate, or from some other mechanism that enshrines a right to the income it generates, like a tax. On that primary yardstick, nations all over the world, but especially in the west, have been socialist for a long time. In most developed countries, governments now supervene over about half[1] of the formal economy, and no mechanism is in sight to prevent their relentlessly expanding ownership.

Perhaps because this socialist trajectory is, in part, a structural consequence of large-scale democracy, we can observe that it has emerged at an impressive pace[2]. Just over a century ago, those same countries had tiny public sectors, accounting for less than 10% of the economy. As predicted by the soundest economic theories, with a burgeoning state, real per capita growth has dwindled to zero and inequality has soared. For the last half century, there has been no growth in middle class incomes[3]. Zero.

One of the greatest feats in the history of marketing was convincing people that socialism had something to do with power for workers, or that it would somehow involve “the people” as a whole owning or controlling the means of production. As slogans go, “Workers of the world unite!” was exceptional. But this was a scam, and no plausible, coherent schema for articulating how power would be vested in or exercised by workers or “the people” has ever been put forth. And so socialism can and should only be characterised by the extent to which the state owns assets and income streams, and the degree to which political power is centralized and markets are distorted by state intervention. Workers and “the people” can never play a meaningful role in the system.

Now when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, anyone predicting that, by this yardstick, merely a few decades later, the countries of the West would be more socialist than Russia and China, would have been mocked, but that is indeed what has transpired. Finland is now more socialist than its neighbouring Russia. The purpose of this talk is to explain how this tragic and foreboding situation transpired.

A jarring fact is that socialism was founded and promoted by the bankers of the Anglo-American Establishment, not for benevolent or philanthropic purposes, but to further their own interests. This seem implausible to some. Why would arch capitalists bay for socialism? But elite control of governments has been a permanent feature of life everywhere, whether one lives under democracy, monarchy or tyranny. Through lobbying, media control, infiltration and bribery, elites have long been able to capture and control governments, and as governments increase in size, the rewards from capturing them do too. Because banking has long been a transnational enterprise, the notion of the sovereign state is, like the notion of socialism being for workers, largely illusory. If you are an elite seeking control, it is far easier to get government to confiscate private assets, bringing them under your control for free, than to generate the wealth needed to buy them on the open market. So socialism offers financial elites an enormous bounty.

The actions taken by transnational bankers to bring about this situation over a century-and-a-half are not a matter of speculation, but are instead documented in excruciating detail, in some cases even by the very institutions they formed. Alec [Hogg, editor of BizNews], I took your advice to heart and ran the text of this talk through Anthropic’s Claude, and it had only minor quibbles, which I was happy to correct. That the matters of public record I’ll lay out here aren’t spoken about in mainstream media, because it is under the tight control[4] of the same bankers, might mean that you don’t know about them, but your not knowing about them does not mean that they constitute a “conspiracy theory”. That term was a catch-all term devised by the CIA to divert attention away from its now broadly accepted role in the assassination of JFK, so it is entirely childish to use it pejoratively.

Picking a starting point for a complex historical phenomenon is always somewhat arbitrary, as nothing happens without prior cause. I may surprise you, by choosing as the best place to start, South Africa in 1891. This was when Cecil John Rhodes formed The Society of the Elect[5], for the purpose of “extending British rule throughout the world”[6]. As ensuing events would make clear, “British rule” didn’t mean rule by a monarch or government or “the people”, but by the international financiers behind The Society of the Elect’s founding. Chief among the founders were Lord “Natty” Rothschild; Lord Alfred Milner—soon to become High Commissioner for Southern Africa, Governor of the Cape Colony and a director of the Rothschild’s Rio Tinto mining company; Alfred Beit—a founder of the British South Africa Company for whom Beit Bridge is named; Randlord “Abe” Bailey—born in Cradock in the Eastern Cape; and Reginald Baliol Brett—an advisor to Queen Victoria. Quite a storied lot.

On the other side of the Atlantic, just two weeks later, JP Morgan founded the Metropolitan Club in New York. He was a Rothschild representative, with links to that family that were half a century old. The Metropolitan Club’s members included New York grandees such as Vanderbilt and Roosevelt. What a coincidence.

After Rhodes’ early death in 1902, his secret society came to be known as the Milner Group, and it was through Lord Milner that the Rothschilds proceeded to cast one of history’s largest shadows.

Separately, just seven years before the Milner and Morgan Groups’ establishment, and just ten months after Karl Marx’s death, a splinter group of the Scottish-American socialist Thomas Davidson’s club was established—the Fabian Society. Fabians recognised two things about Marxism—that its economic theories were nonsensical, so that it could only be a political movement, and that attempts to introduce socialism by revolution were destined to fail, so that gradualism would be required. That was the motivation for the choice of their name, which was a reference to the successful delaying tactics of the consul and sometime dictator of the Roman Republic, Quintus Fabius Maximus, during the Second Punic War against the Carthaginians under Hannibal.

The Fabian Society would be a low-profile, semi-secret organisation gradually infiltrating society at every level to promote socialist thinking on a global basis. Included in their socialist thinking was that the world should come under the governance of a New World Order—a global socialist dictatorship with technocratic characteristics.

Their funding came not in the main from annual membership fees, but from prolific commercial magnates and financiers, including the houses of Rockefeller, Carnegie, Rothschild, Astor, Waldorf, Balfour, Cadbury, Tata, and many others. And elite funding of the spawn of Fabianism continues apace to this very day.

With overlapping funding, interests and memberships, the scene was set for the Milner and Morgan Groups and the Fabian Society to embark on a largely silent, but incredibly successful campaign to change the world.

Logically, the first sector targeted by this campaign was education in the United Kingdom. With astonishing pace, Fabians infiltrated and quickly controlled the London School Board, key colleges of Oxford University, the University of Glasgow and others, and had established the London School of Economics by 1895. The LSE would go on to attract notable students, such as John F Kennedy and David Rockefeller himself. Bertrand Russell, Clement Atlee and Joseph Schumpeter had taught there, and it had become notorious as the global hotbed of socialist teaching. Women’s and youth groups followed. Already by 1897—wow, just two years into the project—Beatrice Webb, who was a foundational Fabian Society actor, was not exaggerating when she said that no young man or woman who wanted to study or work in public affairs could avoid coming under Fabian influence.

And so it would go, through Arts and Crafts, architecture, theatre, media houses, trade unions and churches around the world. Church infiltration was quite an extraordinary achievement, because Fabians were typically downright hostile to religion. And they equally infiltrated Masonic lodges and movements such as Theosophy.

Political infiltration did not take long, with the creation of the predecessor of the Labour Party. By 1924 they had a UK Prime Minister, in the form of Ramsay MacDonald, and since then the total has risen to nine, including Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Keir Starmer[7]. This statistic understates the influence the Fabian Society’s financiers had wrought, because over the same period they had also infiltrated the Liberal Party, steadily steering them away from their natural domain of civil rights and protections for the individual against the state, and towards advocacy for free international trade. This suited the emergence of transnational monopolies and oligopolies whose power could be wielded against national governments. In a word, globalisation.

Elsewhere, Australia[8] has had a Fabian prime minister more than half the time over the last half century, and from India to Nigeria to Singapore, other parts of the former British Empire have had their turns too. Even in the US, Bill Clinton, with his advocacy of “Third Way” politics, and Barack Obama both stank to high heaven of Fabian socialism. And what all these statesmen had in common is that they never once mentioned the Fabian Society in their election manifestos. That’s Fabian gradualism for you.Talk

But all of this was nothing compared to the infiltration of the permanent bureaucracies of the world—the so-called “deep states”. Though organisations that you likely haven’t heard of, such as Common Purpose, the implementation arm of gradualism now active in 200 cities worldwide and counting alumni in a staggering 22,000 institutions, and South Africa’s Diversi-T may lack direct links to the Fabian Society, their overlapping funders, membership and policy make it sheer folly to reject a connection. And such organisations have been as adept at amassing funding from large corporations as they have been at concealing the fact that they act to project Fabian notions onto the organisations they purport to serve with their so-called training and leadership programs.

Geopolitical shaping by this financial elite included fomenting and funding of the Anglo-Boer War[9], the Russian Revolution, the First and Second World Wars and many other conflicts.

In the same way that the Milner and Morgan Groups emerged in lockstep, on both sides of the Atlantic international affairs organisations were spawned by the same financiers. In the UK it was the Royal Institute for International Affairs, or Chatham House. In the US it was the Council for Foreign Relations. Both of these had predecessor organisations that were founded just one year apart in the wake of the World War I.

These groups wasted no time forming and populating the League of Nations, and began working on the United Nations as an instrument of world government. No fewer than 40 Council for Foreign Relations members attended the 1945 meeting where the UN Charter was drafted.

The same people saw to the formation of secret talk shops, such as the Trilateral Commission and the sinister Bilderberg Group. MI6 was a Milnerite creation and its American station set up the predecessor of the CIA. Most CIA directors have been CFR members ever since. Later, Mossad would be organized along MI6 and CIA lines. They also set up the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, which were to preside over the debt traps into which governments all over the world would be forced so as to deliver comprehensive control over their domestic policies. If you haven’t read Confessions of an Economic Hitman, I strongly recommend that you do.

And these organizations in turn would set about sculpting a great many second-order organisations such as the World Economic Forum, which tells you to your face that you will “own nothing and be happy”. And they would elevate the creepiest of people—constructs, really—into high position. Even Jeffrey Epstein would make his way onto the Trilateral Commission at the behest of David Rockefeller[10]. As an aside, the less damning half of the Epstein files that have been shown to the public contain no few than 4,400 references to Ariane Rothschild[11], the atheist head of the continental branch of the Rothschild family. We’re dealing with some really sick puppies here.

In short, through constant and massive funding, and multigenerational consistency of objectives, Fabianisation of the western world is all but complete, and an argument can be made that considerable progress has been made in the rest of the world too.

In case this hasn’t been enough to make your hair stand on end, let’s take a look at some of the policies Fabians have pursued. You can decide whether you can see signs of results in the world of today:

· Multiculturalism, “transformation”, DEI and “inclusive capitalism”

· The Islamization of Europe and anti-white pressure groups such as Black Lives Matter

· Erosion of custodial arrangements for public securities

· Lobbying to favour large corporations over small

· Fear projection to persuade populations into accepting infringement of rights

· Assaults on the nuclear family and traditional gendered roles

The capacity to disrupt nations that did not fall in line with these policies received prodigious funding. The CIA and MI6 funded and trained Afghanistan elements that would go on to become al-Qaeda and the Taliban[12], and the Kosovo Liberation Army that was instrumental in NATO’s bombing of Serbia, and they ultimately perfected the deployment of so-called colour revolutions, of which there have been more than a dozen in the last half century, in diverse places—Ukraine, Georgia, Iran and so on.

To illustrate how pervasively the Anglo-American establishment supervenes over South Africa, let’s look at just one sector: energy.

On top of it all we had the late Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, governor of the London School of Economics for 42 years, driving the translation of climate science into economic imperative, with Edmond de Rothschild Asset Management’s €26b commitment to “Net Zero alignment” bringing the muscle to the part.

Here’s how that gets local. In the restructuring of Eskom’s mountain of debt Rothschild & Co advise the creditors, while Lazard Ltd—the historically Rothschild-allied principal bank of the Anglo-American Establishment—advises Eskom itself. This restructuring was a precondition for accessing funding for South Africa’s so-called Just Energy Transition, the single largest climate finance deal directed at any developing country. Martin Kingston, the executive chairman of Rothschild & Co, also chairs B4SA, the implementation arm of BUSA—Business Unity South Africa—which handles relations with government, as well as the Resource Mobilisation Fund, which deploys energy modelling, tariff design, legal, communications and policy experts into the President’s NECOM apparatus. So Rothschild & Co is simultaneously:

• advising the National Treasury, which decides whether to assume Eskom’s debt;

• advising on Eskom’s restructuring, which determines the structure of the energy market;

• advising Transnet, which is supposed to transport the coal that fuels Eskom’s generation fleet; and

• representing creditors in Eskom’s debt reorganisation, which determines terms of the unbundling.

In short, NUMSA is right. The Rothschilds have almost complete control over the process that is forcing South Africa down the catastrophically expensive lark of renewable energy under the banner of the climate crisis scam. We’re talking about a level of state capture that’s enough to make a Gupta blush, and they’re laughing all the way to the bank at our considerable expense. Because all of this will ensure that, instead of utilizing abundant and cheap coal to secure the energy independence it enjoyed during the apartheid era, South Africa will emerge over-indebted, energy-starved, even more dependent on the Anglo-American Establishment and with a national government that is, in all matters of importance, manipulated by foreign interests. With time in hand, I’d explore the motives and purposes of such elaborate and extensive control, but suffice it to say that it is not exerted in the interests of ordinary people of any culture, creed or ethnicity.

And on that pleasant thought, I’ll end by thanking you for allowing me to cheer you up. I look forward to your questions.

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_government_budget

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/historical-gov-spending-gdp?tab=line

[3] https://claude.ai/share/6efdfeb1-0a33-4c7f-b00f-1560335bd31d

[4] https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/billionaire-ownership-media

[5] Ratiu, Ioan. The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy: How an international elite is taking over and destroying Europe, America and the World. Great Britain: Free Europe Books, 2012 (revised edition 2019)

[6] Quigley, Carroll. The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden. New York: Books in Focus, 1981 (From the manuscript completed in 1949)

[7] https://fabians.org.uk/hard-fought/

[8]

Queen Bee@KingBobIIV

Australia has its own Fabian Society, formally called the Australian Fabian Society, established in 1947 as a sister organisation to the London Fabians. Like in New Zealand, it has been the main intellectual and policy engine of the Australian Labour Party (ALP). They publish

5:18 AM · Sep 7, 2025 · 10.6K Views

---

12 Replies · 80 Reposts · 183 Likes

[9] Goodson, Stephen Mitford. The Genocide of the Boers. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2018

[10]

[11] https://www.livemint.com/news/world/who-is-ariane-de-rothschild-head-of-edmond-de-rothschild-bank-named-in-epstein-files-11770294887448.html

[12] https://claude.ai/share/6545eb9f-ad4b-43f5-8662-e789ad936fd0