A Fabian Socialist Dream Come True

Wrecking our armed forces…fabianism!!

“War on Poverty” was another British Fabian Socialist slogan. The idea for the “Struggle for Peace and Disarmament” was conveyed by Wilson in a speech at the Socialist International Congress. The idea that disarmament might be achieved by popular demand in democratic countries if funds normally allocated for national defense could be dramatically diverted into a war on poverty. It would go a long way toward abolishing the armed forces of the Free World and their weapons of the future. 434.

A Fabian Socialist Dream Come True

THE MILITANT JEFFERSONIAN Monday, August 4, 2008 columnist: Republicae

Posted on 07 October 2010 07:37:33 by restornu

The Fabian Society began in England in 1887 by a very small group of elitist socialist that sought to reform society gradually into one of socialism instead of through violent revolution. At first their purpose was to be an alternative in Britain for the more dominate Marxist Social-Democratic Federation, but their true goal was to accomplish socialism through a very gradual process using the voting booth and representative democracy as their instrument of change. In fact, one of their symbols is a Turtle with the motto: “When I Strike, I Strike Hard”. Another symbol is the Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing and the Globe on an Anvil being hammered into the Fabian model.

The Fabian Plan for gradual Socialist Revolution was as definitive as it possibly could be, to say it has been a conspiracy is simplistic in the extreme. It instituted a widespread educational program for its leadership and its minions, as time progressed, it opened schools, such as the London School of Economics, and the New School of Social Research.

One stroke of genius was that instead of advocating a Socialist State, they assisted in the implementation of the Welfare State, which as we should all know is merely a few steps away from a purely Socialistic State. It was, of course, implemented gradually, and played upon the weaknesses of human nature to gain popularity. Unlike the usual Socialist points of views, the Fabians didn’t advocate complete State ownership of businesses, industry, agriculture or land, instead they sought to involve the State into very specific areas of importance such as electric power production, transportation, precious metals and of course, credit. The remaining balance of economic systems would be left to the private sector however; it would be highly regulated by the State and operated according to the wishes of the State.

If you look at Britain, you will see that they accomplished their goals with ease and while American has been more difficult, the goals are the same and they have made enormous advances toward those goals, as we all know. Much of their accomplishments have been realized without using that dreaded word: Socialism. They have brought the Fabian Dream to America through an extremely brilliant system that has been openly accepted by the voters of this country without the hint of suspicion on their part that they were voting a Socialistic system into place.

Now, make no mistake about it, Fabian Socialists are Statist, they are absolutely authoritarian in their philosophy. Their long-term goal has always been a Socialistic Dictatorship with full-imposition of a very legalistic society where the individual is simply a part of the collective. An example of this can be found in the writings of one of the founders of the Fabian Society, George Bernard Shaw speaking of the Socialist Utopia, he said: “Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.”

Of course, all of this would be in the best interest of society as a whole and the whole made up simply of parts, individuals merely cogs in the machine of social justice. This idea of social justice is the biggest selling point and perhaps the easiest to peddle to the people. Programs of social reform, incremental at first, allowed for the tempering of the people; allowing for them to grow accustom to the intervention of the State in the affairs of the individual. Of course, such reforms are never an end unto themselves only stepping-stones to a greater Socialist construct of society.

Regarding the great strides made toward these goals, Max Beer stated with confidence: “There was no reason for Socialists to wait for revolution. The realization of socialism had begun the moment when the State became accessible to social reform ideas.” Indeed, the revolution was already half realized at the moment when the State stepped over the threshold of progressive social construction and intervention into the private lives of the people.

The first step in any Socialist plan is the reform of capitalism, when the capitalist system is sufficiently neutralized the rest comes relatively easy. The first step to an efficient plan of capitalist neutralization is control over the money supply and for that a central bank is required along with a fiat monetary system, in this country that was initiated with the advent of the Federal Reserve. Later, of course must come effective controls over major infrastructure and services, all accomplished through the New Deal. The New Deal accomplished substantial feats toward the Fabian Socialist construct with numerous price controls, quotas, subsidies, inspections, regulations, licenses, fees, penalties and massive government interventions into what was formerly private enterprise. Although you would never hear politicians of either political party to admit to support the ideals of socialism, they nevertheless not only support such measures, but also promote them.

We have recently seen a greater push toward socialism, though few realize it. The government is assuming more and more responsibility for and authority over the economy, all under the guise of protecting the people from potentially unscrupulous free marketeers. We are being moved yet another step closer to the dream-society of the Fabians. Of course, these are simply steps, essential parts to a much broader agenda, one that is authoritarian in nature and execution, even the centrally planned economy is a mere step, not the end product. It is all carefully crafted, manufactured to ensure the most popular support possible for “people-friendly” solutions while instituting a fraudulent system of central control over the unsuspecting public. The system has been marketed to the public, one specific component at a time, each component essential to the completion of the whole and that is the brilliance of this gradual imposition of Fabian Socialism in this country.

The greatest bulwark against tyranny in America has always been the system of private ownership and free enterprise, it is the cornerstone of our system of government and without it our freedoms and liberty are in jeopardy. Central economic planning is, in a very basic sense, the keystone to Fabian Socialism, for in order for it to succeed, central State planning and control must replace the system of free enterprise. While it was not necessary for the State to actually own or directly control all the elements in the economy it is enough for the State to have the right to assert itself in any area that it deems necessary. The Fabians called it “the democratization of economic power”, in other words socialized and centralized control over economic direction within the country.

In 1942, Stuart Chase, in his book “The Road We Are Traveling” spelled out the system of planning the Fabians had in mind; the interesting thing is to look at that plan in comparison to 2008 America.

1. Strong, centralized government.

2. Powerful Executive at the expense of Congress and the Judicial.

3. Government controlled banking, credit and securities exchange.

4. Government control over employment.

5. Unemployment insurance, old age pensions.

6. Universal medical care, food and housing programs.

7. Access to unlimited government borrowing.

8. A managed monetary system.

9. Government control over foreign trade.

10. Government control over natural energy sources, transportation and agricultural production.

11. Government regulation of labor.

12. Youth camps devoted to health discipline, community service and ideological teaching consistent with those of the authorities.

13. Heavy progressive taxation.

It should be evident that while Socialist no longer use the name that the plan is Socialism at its heart. The Fabian Socialist Revolution began in earnest in this country in 1933 with the imposition of the Welfare State and has been steadily progressing since. Those who are promoting this system, whether in the Republican Party or Democratic Party, are nothing less than Traitors, guilty of a type of high treason that deserves the most punitive penalty for such treachery. Listen carefully to the propositions of both McCain and Obama; I suspect that you will quickly find both of their positions are not only similar, but propose in essence and detail the Fabian Socialist construct. The system that these marauders are imposing upon us will ultimately alter our system of government beyond recognition.

It is all accomplished with the utmost respectability of course, they would not dream of such an imposition without popular support and they will make sure that they have popular support.

In 1933, they proposed that private enterprise had failed leaving the jobless to starve, hope to fade and that the State must step in to save the country and protect the people from the dangers associated with the inherent problems of free enterprise. Today, the call is very similar, the State must step in to protect the people. The Corporate State is, in the minds of Fabians, the ultimate protector of the common man, the provider of security on all fronts, but it requires our complete compliance and the relinquishment of our liberty in exchange. The State is to ultimately be the only one allowed wealth, the problem is that wealth is the people’s wealth confiscated in exchange for their hard labor. It is, in essence, a plan for a modern feudal society of peonage and the people are the peons.

Proofs of a Conspiracy? Look around…

In Liberty and Eternal Vigilance,



A Fabian Socialist Dream Come True


By Rose Martin, published 1966

Note: The Women’s Group carries used copies of the terribly important book. Rose Martin did the U.S. and freedom a real service by writing this book. In my opinion, it is more important than Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope.

This is an excerpt that Joan Veon did to help her with her research.

Over the years the Fabian turtle has won a series of gradual victories that could hardly been predicted in 1920 when the possibility of socialist control in England and the US seemed remote to its own leaders. In England the Fabian Society has succeeded in penetrating and permeating organizations, social movements, political parties until today its influence pervades the whole fabric of daily life. After WWII, Fabians presided over the liquidation of nation’s colonial empire and today [1966] through their control of opinion-forming groups at the highest levels, they play a powerful role in formulating foreign policy on both sides of the Atlantic.

By 1961, at least 36 high officials of the New Frontier Admin were found to be past or present members of an Anglo-Fabian-inspired organization calling itself Americans for Democratic Action.

In the past 30 years a whole series of loaded epithets has been invented for the purpose—beginning with “reactionary” in the early 1930s and proceeding through “fascist” and “McCarthyite” to “Birchite”. At the present “Right Wing extremist” is the automatic catchword applied to any person who seeks to expose or oppose the Socialist advance. Arthur Schlesinger, jr. from Harvard wrote in the Parisian Review, “There seems to be no inherent obstacle to the gradual advance of Socialism in the US through a series of ‘New Deals’”. Elsewhere he describes the New Del as “a process of backing into Socialism.”

In 1949 Schlesinger was advocating “liberal Socialism” and cling on power states to ‘expand its main strength in determining the broad levels and conditions of economic activity.” From 1961 to 1964, Schlesinger was Administrative Assistant to the President of the US.

In 1962, Gus Hall, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the U.S. told students at the University of California in an off-campus address, that the U.S. is “towards Socialism, Not like in other countries but based on America’s background, and still Socialism.” He predicted that the “US will move gradually from Socialism to the higher state of Communism.”

Seen in the light, the value of the Socialist International to the communist International becomes plain. Popular confusion on the subject has given rise to a dangerous myth, namely, that a basic and irreconcilable enmity exists between Socialists and communists. This is by no means true.

On the same October evening in 1883 that Karl Marx died, 16 young Britishers met to hear Thomas Davidson, a Scottish-born American give a talk on “The New Life.” From that meeting, the Fabian Society of London was born. The nine who remained in the Fabian Society wanted to change the world through a species of propaganda termed “education,” which would lead to political action. This group is now the most prominent and important Socialist organization in England. Without advertising the fact, it has also assumed leadership of a world-wide Socialist movement and is the dominant influence in the Socialist International.

Its originality lies in the techniques it has developed for permeating established institutions and penetrating political parties in order to win command of the machinery of power.

The Fabian Society was named for Quintus Fabius Maximus, a Roman General and dictator who lived in the third century B.C. In his lifetime, Fabius was nicknamed “Cunctator” the Delayer—because of his delaying tactics against Hannibal in the second Punic War. The motto of the Fabian Society is “For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did most patiently when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes, you must strike hard, as Fabius did or your waiting will be in vain and fruitless.” This has been shortened to “I wait long, but when I strike, I strike hard.”

Early in its infancy, George Bernard Shaw joined and was elected into the Fabian Executive. Before joining the Fabians, Shaw had belonged to a Marxist reading circle. As a speaker, playwright and essayist, Shaw did more than any other human being to establish the fiction that the polite conspiracy called Fabian Socialism is a “peaceful constitutional, moral and economical movement,” needing nothing for its “bloodless and benevolent realization except that the English people should understand and approve of it. (17)

It was Shaw who introduced Sidney Webb into the Society. They became collaborators in producing pamphlets, essays, and reports, drafted plans for political activity and formulated internal and external policies of the Society in advance of executive meetings. Soon they were joined by Syndey Olivier (Lord Olivier) who became the Fabian-inspired Secretary of State for India. Then Graham Wallas – Fabian missionary to the U.S. joined them. In their creed, it announces that “the Fabian Society consists of Socialists” and “aims at the reorganization of society by the emancipation of land and Industrial Capital from individual and class ownership and vesting them in the community for the general benefit. (18-19).

It ws the marriage of Beatrice Potter, daughter of a Canadian railway magnate who left her 1,000 pounds a year in life income, to Sidney Webb that began to pave the way for Fabian research. Fabian research was to buy an opponent under mountains of exhaustive detail. Fabian research supplied the content for the “educational” material distributed by the Society, a good deal of it in the form of tracts and pamphlets presenting the Fabian stand on successive issues. They started to infiltrate town councils, school boards in order to steer the education into the Socialist channels. Ove time, the Fabian Society was to develop a Socialist elite—to discover and mold the leaders of an evolving Socialist world.

By 1900, Fabian Socialist groups started on university campuses. In 1912, university students accounted from more than 1/5 of the Society’s membership. Some of them went on to serve in government.

They then started the London School of Economics. Its benefactor was Henry Hutchison, MP who committed suicide in 1894 and who left a trust of 9000 pounds to further the “propaganda and other purposes of the Society.” The Webss taught at the London School. Others who served on staff included Harold Laski. Among Professor Laski’s students were Jospeh P. Kennedy Jr. in 1933-34 and John F. Kennedy in 1935-36. Even today, the Fabian Society remains a dangerously subtl conspiracy beneath a cloak of social reform.

The Fabian Society of London was the mother society, source of programs, directive and propaganda which were handed down. At the heard of various concentric circles, ringed around and shielded from scrutiny, was the small, hard core of the Fabian leadership which acknowledged no responsibility for the sometimes contradictory acts of individual members—even after stimulating such action. For almost 50 years, Sidney Webb remained the guiding force of the Society—never letting the right hand know what the left was doing.

Unlike their European Socialist comrades, the Fabians established themselves as a private Society of limited membership rather than a political party. The Society was neither doctrinaire nor given to philosophical hairsplitting. All it exacted was a broad pledge of allegiance to Socialist goals. After 1919, Fabians transferred their allegiance en bloc to the British Labor Party, at whose foundation other Fabians had assisted.

What George Dangerfield called “the strange death of liberal England” was hastened by the fact that the Fabian Society was able to release a steady barrage of printed matter politically damaging to Liberalism and its leaders. Through “permeation” Fabians got the ear of important or key persons and inducing them to push through some action desired by them. By 1931-32, both Sidney Webb and George Bernard Shaw confessed their allegiance to Communism and the Party.

In a book which the Webb’s wrote about their visit to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1932 called “Soviet Socialism—A new Civilization?” it never referred to the horrors and brutality with the hug man-made famines in the Ukraine and Crimea. In testimony before the International Security Subcommittee of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, in April 7, 1952, Colonel I. M. Bogolepov, a former Soviet Army officer testified bluntly that the entire text of the Webbs’ book had been prepared in the Soviet Foreign Office. Material for the chapter on Soviet prison camps, stressing the “humane” methods employed in those factories of death was complied by the Secret Police.

When the Webb’s died in 1947, a grateful Labor Government interred the ashes of both of them who were practicing atheists in Westminister Abby.

In the Beatrice Webb House in Surrey England, there is a stained glass window ordered by Shaw that depicts himself and Webb smashing the world with workingmen’s hammers. Among the Fabians kneeling down in mock adoration is HG Wells.

It was Arthur Henderson, a long member of the Fabian Executive, was the foreign minister who in 1929 engineered British diplomatic recognition of Bolshevik Russia and paved the way for similar recognition by the United States.

The destructive nature of the Fabian Socialist was never made sufficiently clear to the British public. The good manners tended to veil their revolutionary purpose and render it improbable to all but the initiate. To gain popular sympathy, the Society concealed its will to power behind a series of apparently benign social welfare programs and preached the brotherhood of man for the attainment of purely material ends.

Members included: Harold Wilson, Prime Minister Attlee

See p. 75 – Fabian Socialist government degreed a job freeze in 1946 and ordered working men and women to take and hold specific jobs at a fixed wage. Rules, permits and excessive paper work not only killed personal initiative but poisoned the daily life of the average citizen. In February 1947, PM Attlee admitted in the Commons, 17 Government Ministries were free to enter private homes without search warrants. Ten thousand officials had authority to invade homes for purposes of inspection. Due process was abandoned as farmers and workingmen became subject to arrest or eviction by official order. In a single year, over 30,000 prosecutions for violating routine regulations were recorded.

Although the widely touted Beveridge Plan was in effect, it has by no means succeeded in abolishing want. As one left wing American commentator noted, the plan merely furnished a thin cushion against total disaster for the most impoverished third of the population. True, every citizen was entitled to prenatal care, a birth subsidy, hospitalization and medical care of sorts, unemployment insuyrance, an old-age pension, funeral coosts and an allowance for his widow and dependent orphans. The subsidies and allowances were tiny and with mounting inflation, barely sufficed for the poorest–$16 at birth and $80 for a pauper burial.

So poverty was not eliminated but increased to plague proportions, and life was a nightmare for everyone but the most dedicated bureaucrats. A man might have “social security,” yet he could not go out and buy a dozen eggs. After 4 years of Socialist government he was only entitled to an egg and a half per week as decreed by Marxist No. 1, John Strachey, Fabian Minister of Food/Supply. (76)

Socialism in practice, unlike its glowing predictions, was turning out to be a dreary treadmill for the great majority of the British people. Confiscatory taxes on land, inheritance and income, coupled with the restrictions on productive investment had driven into flight whatever capital was left or forcd it to remain idle.

Though the best brains of the Fabian Society were engaged in the furtile effort to make socialism work, it was becoming obvious that the new system of improvisation and promises simply cound not deliver the goods. Socialist theory in action was wrecking the economy of Britain which for several centuries had prospered from the profitable sale and brokerage of goods and services around the world. 78

The Fabian Society’s handwriting was plain in the International’s 1951 Frankfurt manifesto which declared “democratic planning” to be the basic condition for achieving Socialism. Statism and the welfare state, as demonstrated by the British Socialists during their spell of majority Labor Party Government was being packaged deceptively for export around the world. 80

Coexistence with the Soviet Union and its satellites was defensible and remained a basic point of Fabian foreign policy. It was echoed by the Socialist International, it was echoed by a succession of Fabian Socialist Ministers in the Commonwealth countries, typified by PM Walter Nash of New Zealand. In August 1954, Morgan Phillips of the Fabian International Bureau led a British labor delegation which included Lord Attlee on a junket to Moscow and Red China. 81

Phillips “reflected that a great new age was now dawning for Asia, an age that the Labor Government in Britain had helped to usher in when it granted independence to India, Pakistan and Burma.” 82

Fabian lenience toward communist movements and leaders was held to be justified not only by their joint Socialist heritage, but by their common purpose of achieving Socialism throughout the world. In the lead essay of the New Fabian Essays, published in 1952, as a “restatement” in modern terms of unchanging Fabian objectives, then Fabian Executive R.H.S. Crossman noted that Communist movements are often the most effective way of introducing Socialism into backward countries which lack parliamentary experience.

By inference, Democratic Socialism as preached by Fabians is designed primarily to captivate advanced industrial nations where the more direct Communist methods of attack do not appeal and cannot so easily penetrate. Plainly the two movements supplement each other, even if their vocabulary is different and their tasks are divided.

Fabian Socialists still preferred to retain their separated identity and their right to criticize which is the Fabian definition of freedom. 92

At the outbreak of WWII by a key member o f the Fabian International Bureau, R.W.G. McKay, aided by Fabian-approved Rhodes Scholars Clarence K. Streit and Herbert Agar, promoted the cause of the Atlantic Union and continue to do so today. Federal Union calls among other thins for the Government of the U.S. to reunite with Britain, while Atlantic Union marshals European support for the same plan. Both in its original and expanded forms, Federal Union has appropriated the secret dream of 19thC Empire builder Cecil Rhodes and remolded it along line more adapted to the schemes of the Socialist International.

What it proposes is that the world’s most advanced Christian nations should revise their idea of national sovereignty and pool their economic as well as their military resources. Its Fabian framers attempt to justify the plan by quoting copiously from the writings of the early American Federalists, although the new type of union projected is very far from anything James Madison or Alexander Hamilton had in mind. Atlantic Union or Atlantica, would embrace a group of 15 highly industralized welfare states on both sides of the North Atlantic and culminate into one World Government. The Socialist character of that eventual World Sate is not emphasized in the smoothly written propaganda and even smoother social functions designed to attract industrialists, financiers, educators, statesmen and military figures of the several NATO nations. 83-84

While striving to render patriotism outmoded and to discredit the concept of national sovereignty in the more literate countries, British Fabians at the same time speeded up their efforts to promote nationalist movements in so-called backward areas of the globe. At first glance it might seem a contradiction but closer scrutiny reveals that Fabian aid to national independence movements in colonial and semi-colonial lands stems from the theories advanced in 1902 by John Atkinson Hobson in his book, Imperialism, which ante-dated and influenced Lenin’s writings on the subject. 84

In 1949 Sir Stafford Cripps, then a Minister of the Crown, made the remarkable announced that “The liquidation of the British Empire is essential to Socialism.” This statement appeared in the march 1949 issue of Venture, published by the Fabian Colonial Bureau, later renamed the Fabian Commonwealth Bureau. During the same year, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions was formed as an adjunct of the Fabian-led Socialist International to speed colonial liquidation not only in British Territories but in other regions as well. 85

Trade unions around the world were to be inoculated with Socialism and to press for the political independence of dismemberment of the British Empire. 87

Members of the Americans for Democratic Action from the United States were welcomed regularly at Fabian Summer Schools. 87

There is a firm nucleus of Fabian civil servants in every government department and Fabian Socialists have been regularly appointed as Opposition members on government Advisory Boards as well as key posts at the UN. A.D.K. Owen known as David Owen has been a fixture at the UN since its inception. As director of the Office of Technological Services, he has been in a position to dispense patronage to Fabian Socialists on a worldwide basis.

Thought the terminology has changed with the times, the Fabian society remains a secret society of Socialists, dedicated to transforming the existing world order by methods necessarily devious and not always short of sedition. 92

Wilson succeeded to the political leadership of Britain’s labour Party at a moment when International Socialism appeared more confident of being able to move into a position of world-wide control, than at any time since the Russian Revolution. With left wing Social Democratic administrations in office or on the verge of it in a majority of countries throughout the so-called Free world, few socialists doubt that they can readily establish a modus operendi with the economically embarrassed Socialist Fatherland and its satellites. 100

Said Harold Wilson on 2/11/63, “Now, we have an American government in active sympathy!” Wilson meant was that the United States now had a program of international commodity agreements. He went on to say,
“Commodity agreements for temperate foodstuffs must provide the machinery for channeling the overspill of our advanced countries into the hungry countries. Buy why food only? There is a surplus of steel in many advanced countries and in this country the steel mills are working at 60% capacity. We want to help India and a score of other developing countries.”

The world giveaway program projected by Wilson and his colleagues of the SI has endless possibilities, limited only by the resources of the donor countries. 100

As a student and teacher at Christ Church College, Oxford, Gordon Walker was a contemporary of Dean Rusk, Walt Whitman Rostow in Washington under the Kennedy-Johnson Administration. After WWII, he served as parliamentry private secretary for a year to Harold Laski’s great friend/ally, Herbert Morrison, Appoints as commonwealth Secretary in 1950-51, he speeded the dissolution of the British Empire: a process initiated by his former chief, Arthur Creech-Jones, an early chairman of the Fabian Colonial Bureau. 103

Like his colleagues of the SI at home/abroad, Denis Healey accepted at face value the Communist world’s amoeba-like application of the early adage, Divide and Conquer. 105

The Right Honorable Harold Wilson, MP, Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury and Vice Chairman of the Socialist International, announced he would proceed without delay to implant full-scale Socialism in Britain—and eventually in the world. Like his predecessors of the postwar era, Wilson’s initial move was to raise $4B abroad to strengthen the British pound to finance his government’s elusive schemes for what it termed the “social democratic revolution.” The first Billion came from the IMF, providentially set up 20 year earliers by Lord Keynes and described by a Socialist International spokesman as being “in essence a Socialist conception.” 109

Visiting Washington to confirm with newly elected Johnson, Wilson told the WH correspondents that the theme of these discussions was “interdependence.” What at first blush might have seemed no more than a classic bit of Fabian “imprudence” was spoke in deadly earnest. The route for “interdependence,” taken in the literal sense and pursued to its logical conclusion, leads in the end to World Government. 110

The Fabians seized control of the Mother of Parliaments and control of the Labor Party Platform which stated clearly: “For us World Government is the final objective…” It was no coincidence that the platform of the Socialist International approved 2 years before in Oslo, proclaimed the same objective and designated the United Nations as an interim medium for achieving it. Nor was it purely wishful rhetoric when Socialist International Information declared that the British labour Party’s victory marked “a renaissance of the power and influence of democratic Socialism throughout the world.” 110

There was another secret weapon valued more highly than the atom bomb by Anglo-American Fabians of the New Deal era. Namely, the university professor, who as the British Fabian Socialist philosopher, John Atkinson Hobson, had suggested was to be the future secret weapon of national strategy. A familiar of Justice Louis D. Brandeis and of the latter’s protege, Felix Frankfurther (founder and director of the ACLU), Hobson merely pointed up a trend that had been gaining momentum in America since the turn of the century. With the Roosevelt Admin, the liberal-to Left professor moved into his prescribed orbit s the planner and guide of national policies based on Fabian Research. A trio of university professors played a major part in shaping the social, fiscal, legal and diplomatic strategy of the Roosevelt Admin. Two were British Nationals, closely identified with the Fabian Society of London. The third was an American citizen who had helped to found organizations in this country known as affiliates of the (Fabian Socialist) League for Industrial Democracy, and who had been rebuked by Former President Theodore Roosevelt for his racial bias. Their names were Felix Frankfurther, Harold J. Laski and John Maynard Keynes. 297-98

Roosevelt had admitted more than a year before becoming President to sponsor the TVA, the Agricultural Adjustment, Public Works and Conservation programs; Securities Exchange and Holding Company control; and something resembling the Nations Recovery Act. He had also agreed to sponsor a system of social insurance leading to the welfare state. If no hint of those intentions appeared in the Democratic Party platform of 1932, only the public was surprised by the rapid-fire developments following Roosevelt’s accession to power (298). Frankfurter recommended prodigies to assist two liberal Supreme Court Justices, Louis D. Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes. Among those recommended were Dean Acheson. With America’s first Socialist-inspired government program staffed and operating with key liberals recommended by Frankfurter, he spent a year at Oxford, near his Fabian admirers. 301

It was Congressman Louis T. McFadden of Pennsylvania who told the US House of Repr. On May 3, 1934 that a certain Israel Moses Seiff had recently declared in a public speech, “Let Us go slowly for a while, until we can see how our plan works out in America.” Seiff belonged to the British organization, Political and Economic Planning-PEP and the plan to which he referred was The New Deal. Why, wondered McFadden would Seiff call the New Deal “our plan?“ UNINTENTIONALLY SEIFF HAD REVEALED A REALTIONSHIP BETWEEN FABIAN SOCIALIST PLANNERS IN ENGLAND AND IN THE UNITED STATES. 302

Political and Economic Planning of which Seiff was a founder, sponsored social, industrial and political “studies” apparently with a view to influencing official action as well as “opinion forming” groups. Some of its findings were eventually published. 302

(See p.303 for whose who participated in PEP—Sir Julian Huxley, Israel Seiff)
p 329 – Keynes’ published a one page letter in the NYT on 12/31/33 to Roosevelt telling him what he should do. In October, the Roosevelt Admin followed Keynes and abandoned the gold standard and adopted the device of a managed currency. To avoid, serious fluctuations in the value of the dollar, Keynes now advised the US Treasury to go into the business of buying/selling bullion. Furthermore he said that the Government should offer a permanent program of government “investments” in public works to supplement the inadequacies of private investment in creating employment. To aid economy recovery, he recommended higher wages/higher prices. 329.

The 1960 election campaign of the US marked the first successful attempt of Left liberals, by then firmly lodged in the Democratic Party organization throughout the country to regain such unobstructed access to the power of the Presidency as they enjoyed in the Roosevelt era. That was an initial reason for founding Americans for Democratic Action. When Kennedy gave his inaugural speech, he said, “a long twilit struggle…against the common enemies of mankind…tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself.” During the last years of his short but crowded lifetime, JFK was sometimes compared by informed observers to Britain’s leading Catholic Fabian, Lord Francis Pakenham. Parkenham became a convinced Marxist by joining the Oxford City Labor Party. Kennedy absorbed in Keynesian outlook at Harvard and London School of Economics. 414-15

Historically the Kennedy-Johnson Admin took office pledged to the most outspokenly radical program ever sponsored by the old-line political party in the US. For publicity purposes the Administration was known as the New Frontier. This could only come from the book by Progressive left-winger Henry Wallace by the same name. Published in 1934, New Frontiers restated in glowing terms the philosophy and objectives of the New Deal. 415

In a speech delivered at Independence Hall in Philadelphia on July 4, 1962, Kennedy “virtually proposed to repeal the Declaration of Independence in favor of a declaration of international independence.” To a passive and somnolent audience he declared,
“But I will say here and now on this day of independence that the U.S. will be ready for a Declaration of Interdependence—that we will be prepared to discuss with a United Europe the ways and means of forming a concrete Atlantic Partnership—a mutually beneficial partnership between the new union now emerging in Europe and the old American Union founded here 175 years ago…Today Americans must learn to think Continentally.”

See p.431-33
Senior member of Johnson’s informal cabinet was Dean Acheson, former protégé of Felix Frankfurter. As under secretary and Secretary of State in the years following WWII, Acheson had been instrumental in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. He was the man who had refused to turn his back on Alger Hiss. 431

Acheson’s role as confidant of President Johnson seemed to guarantee the tenure of his former assistant, Dean Rusk, and the coterie of former Rhodes Scholars at the State Department. This assured the continuance of a Fabian-inspired foreign policy which favored Socialist and even Communist nations while demanding the progressive sacrifice of America’s wealth, strength and prestige. William Bundy, brother of McGeorge took over the post of Assistant Sec. for Far Eastern Affairs, once held by Rusk. Walt Whitman Rostow was assigned to steer the Alliance for Progress, apparently to speed the peaceful development of Socialism in Latin America as a step toward achieving his declared goal of World Goernment. Other informal advisers of Johnson were James Rowe, charter member of the Fabian ADA, Abe Fortas of the firm of Arnold, Fortas and Porter which had defended two generations of Communists and Left liberals in DC. 421

Johnson threw his weight behind the New Frontier, project after another. The subsidized wheat sale to Russia, the campaing year tax cut, the civil rights bill which denied civil rights to serie industries and promised a return to Reconstruction days in the South were all backed by Johnson. In the are of national defense, he gave free reign to Robert McNamara, a former professor who personified the dictum of “to administer is to rule.” Under McNamara oversight, Johnson issued an Executive Order stopping production of uranium and plutonium for military purposes. Johnson’s unconditional surrender to ADA programs was the clearest testimonial to ADA’s position of power in the Democratic Party. To be re-elected he would need ADA support. In one interview to the New York Herald Tribune Johnson said, “You say I am not a liberal. Let me tell you that I am more liberal than Eleanor Roosevelt and I will prove it to you….” 432

One cannot help wondering if Johnson knew that the seemingly harmless phrase, “full employment,” is the keystone of Keynesian economics, an invention of Fabian Socialsts created to lure the US towards full-scale Socialism. 433

Apparently Johnson, like Kennedy, was surrounded by Left liberal idea men and speechwriters who displayed their Fabian Socialist scholarship. Searching for phrases to describe their bright new world of the future, they looked backward. Johnson talked about “the Great Society.” Anyone acquainted with the history of the Fabian Socialist movement knows that The Great Society was the name of a book by Graham Wallas, one of the original Big Four of the London Fabian Society. First published in 1914, the 50th anniversary year of the Socialist International, The Great Society was based on lectures given four years earlier by Wallas as a visiting professor at Harvard. Wallas’ course, Government-31 was a “must” for members of the Harvard Socialist Club of his day. 433

“War on Poverty” was another British Fabian Socialist slogan. The idea for the “Struggle for Peace and Disarmament” was conveyed by Wilson in a speech at the Socialist International Congress. The idea that disarmament might be achieved by popular demand in democratic countries if funds normally allocated for national defense could be dramatically diverted into a war on poverty. It would go a long way toward abolishing the armed forces of the Free World and their weapons of the future. 434.

Story of Jackson before the great Battle of New Orleans—fog I can’t see them.”
Jackson: “Sooner or later, your enemy will show himself and you will know what to do.” Then he added, “An in your future life, if you survive this—and by God, you will?—you will be confronted by many unseen enemies of your hard-fought liberty. But they will show themselves in time—time enough to destroy them.” 454




THE POISON IN BRITAIN the leading Zionists and a Russian-speaking Jew. P.E.P.’s typic ally Fabian
conspiratorial methods are shown by the instructions issued on April-25th, 1933,
with …

Fabians and zionism….

H.G. Wells’ support for Lenin, Trotsky and World Government – Peter Myers, February 19, 2002; update May 22, 2009

H. G. Wells saw the end of World War I as an opportunity to create a new world. He supported both Lenin, and the attempt to create a World Government at the Treaty of Versailles. He also advocated the creation of a Jewish state. His ideas for a united world drew on Jewish thought, in discussions with David Lubin and Israel Zangwill; he also worked closely with Walter Lippman and was a friend of Leo Amery.

Lubin and Zangwill were leading Jewish Zionists; Amery was a secret Jew who authored the Balfour Declaration. Lippmann, also a Jew, helped draft the Treaty of Versailles, and was later a member of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission.

I was puzzled why Lenin opposed the Treaty of Versailles powers, when I thought Wells and his friends had supported that Treaty. It was supposed to be an attempt at World Government, with a World Army and a World Court.

David C. Smith explains in his biography H. G. Wells: Desperately Mortal (pp. 240-2), that Wells and his associates felt that the Treaty of Versailles was a failure, because the World Government forces had not had their way sufficiently. Their opponents were the ‘Tory’ faction of the British Empire (e.g. Lord Northcliffe), plus American nativism and French stubbornness.

Added April 25, 2009: Alexander Parvus channeled Germany money to the Bolsheviks (through Yakov Ganetsky, both being Jewish), and facilitated the passage of Lenin through Germany on his way to Russia, but the Bolsheviks disparaged him to hide the tie (see item 8). They similarly disparaged Wells, but it should be viewed in the same light. After his visit to Russia in 1920, he was the Soviet Government’s main apologist in Britain.

(1) David C. Smith, H.G. Wells: Desperately Mortal (2) David Lubin, Israel Zangwill and Walter Lippmann – all close Jewish colleagues of Wells (3) David Lubin & H. G. Wells on One World (4) Wells against Zionism (5) Wells was a Communist of the Trotskyist-Fabian kind (6) Lenin’s Opposition to the Treaty of Versailles (7) H. G. Wells, Henry Wickham Steed, and Viscount Grey put the case for World Government, in The Atlantic Monthly, January & February 1919 (8) Bolsheviks disparaged Parvus to hide their ties; Wells likewise

(1) David C. Smith, H.G. Wells: Desperately Mortal, Yale University Press, New Haven 1986.

{p. 91} Wells was a socialist long before the Fabian Society attracted him.

{p. 106} As the Webbs had a number of friends who fitted this category of thinking persons, it was soon logical for Sidney to approach Wells with the idea of setting up a dining club, to meet once a month to discuss some major question of the day, debate the meaning of these questions, and enlighten each other. … Wells joined the group with pleasure, as did others. Over the next three years or so, the group, calling themselves The Coefficients (the name indicates their style in solving problems), met and discussed their questions. Exactly how many of their meetings Wells attended is now not known, but he did speak several times, and afterwards the other members of the group, Leopold Amery, H. W. Massingham, Bertrand Russell, Pember Reeves, R. B. Haldane, Henry Newbolt, Sir Edward Grey, Halford Mackinder, Leo Masse, James L. Garvin, and Lord Milner, all looked upon those meetings from 1902 to 1907 as being significant in their own development, as well as for the friendships which were created.

{p. 107} The names alone suggest that Wells was not only playing a game for high stakes, but that his views were getting a good airing.

{Lord Milner was the head of the secret society set up by Cecil Rhodes to shape the future of the Empire, known as Milner’s Kindergarten, as the Round Table Group, as the Rhodes crowd, as The Times crowd, as the All Souls group, and as the Cliveden set. See Carroll Quigley’s book The Anglo-American Establishment}

{p. 127} Leo Amery, among Wells’ friends of the period, stirred himself the most, writing a sixteen-page letter, much of which was gentle criticism, especially of Wells’ discussion of loyalties, to region and to country.

{The Jerusalem Post of Tuesday, January 12, 1999, reported in an article entitled “Balfour Declaration’s author was a secret Jew”:
“by DOUGLAS DAVIS: LONDON (January 12) – Leopold Amery, the author of the Balfour Declaration – the 1917 document from British foreign secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild which laid the groundwork for the establishment of the State of Israel – was a secret Jew. This has been disclosed in just-published research by William Rubinstein, professor of modern history at the University of Wales, who says Amery hid his Jewish background.”
The report is at http://www.jewishsf.com/bk990115/ibalfour.htm}

{p. 147} Wells soon began publishing some of his material in the New Republic, then being edited in part by Lippman.

{p. 230} The war had a tremendous impact on Wellsian thought. Eventually that thought led him to explore the possibility of an end to individual governments, and the possible emergence of a world state … in his own search for a meaning in the war’s causes and cost, he spent a brief time refurbishing the Christianity he had been taught at home. And, although he later specifically repudiated these books … they are worth a brief mention as an indication the depth of his search. One source of his change of view was apparendy an exchange of letters and talks with David Lubin about elements in Jewish thought similar to Wells’s notion of religion as revealed faith; the main emphasis was on a sort of deistic God who set things in motion and then watched them work themselves out. This God (Wells referred to his deity as ‘the Veiled Being’ and ‘the Invisible King’) provided the intellectual possibility of survival for mankind, but did not guarantee it, and certainly not through any kind of personal redemption or salvation from the interference of others. When Wells finished his work, he and Israel Zangwill exchanged several visits and letters about his ideas and Zangwill sent copies to the Chief Rabbi in England for discussion.

In God the Invisible King (1917), Wells’s philosophical tract (much of this material also appears in the 1917 revision of First and Last Things, but waa excised in later printings), he mentioned discussions he had had with William James. He found that the problem in modern Christian stemmed from the ill-directed Council of Nicaea which had adopted the idea of the Trinity.

{p. 232} Essentially, though, Wells had tried Christianity again, albeit in a version much altered from tha normally taught, and had found it wanting. Other matters were more important now. Russia had left the war. Who knew whether the Allies could win? What sort of peace might emerge? Could he and his supporters return to the days and ideals of ‘the war to end war’, to create a peace in which the thought of further war was simply not possible? {because there was a World Army} For him, it came down to the question of how we can achieve those goals – and how H. G. Wells could help in the effort. The last two years of the Great War were for Wells, as for many others, an opportunity to change the world once and for all.

{p. 233} The Allies had failed in their attempt to keep the Russians active, and the threat of a stepped-up German campaign in the west made them angry at the Bolsheviks. Invasion of Russian territory, recriminations against the new government, and its eventual exclusion from the peace settlement at Versailles resulted. As Woodrow Wilson said, in the sixth of his Fourteen Points, how the world treated Russia after the war would determine much of the future status of European and world diplomatic affairs. The Russians took this at face value, but Wilson was thinking of pre-war Russia, not of the Bolsheviks.

{Yet the Fourteen Points were issued on January 8, 1918, whereas the Bolshevik Revolution occurred on November 7, 1917 – both dates in the Western Calendar. The point is, surely, that Wells’ wanted the World Confederation, and the Treaty of Versailles whose job it was to draft that Confederation, to include the Bolshevik government.}

{p. 234} When the Russian Revolution blew up in the spring of 1917, the Britisb press began to scrabble about for information. Wells’s pre-war article was

{p. 235} reprinted as a recent source and he was asked to lead a special mission to a to observe the events. He did not go (in part bccause he was immersed in his work on war aims), but he did issue several statements welcoming the new free Russia. These pieces were circulated widely in the United States, and published in England only two or three days later. Others – Shaw … for example – issued similar statements. As Wells said, ‘We had not dared to hope it …’ but now that it (the Revolution) had come, ‘it is the precursor of the world confederation of republics that will ensure the enduring peace of the world.’ Although Wells knew that the diplomatic corps would not be happy, ‘in the hearts of the four British nations the Russian Revolution burns like a fire.’ As time went on his feelings and support intensified and his statements on the Revolution and its promise remained strong. They were widely printed and commented upon through the summer of 1917.

After the Russians left the war and signed the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, a great storm of rancour arose in England. Wells did not swerve from his position, however, and outlined his views again in a long article for the Daily Mail, urging others to rethink their opposition to the Bolsheviks. He told his readers that Kerensky had proved to be a weak person. He had been overthrown because of that weakness and the growing strength of a counter-revolutionary force in Russia. Wells felt that the aims of most liberals in the world continued to coincide with Russian aims; that is, an end to German militarism, for, as he told his readers, ‘Peace without a German revolution can’t be a peace.’ A League of Nations was needed and persons who wished this should guard against a revival of the old diplomacy, with its aristocratic ways. Opposition to the Russian Revolution had shown up the diplomats for what they really were. In fact, said Wells, on the issue of war and peace aims, ‘… it seems to me the Bolsheviks are altogether wiser and plainer than our own rulers.’

These were the issues for Wells. What sort of a peace would occur? By the time he wrote this article defending the Russian Revolution, the war was well on the way to ending. The Americans were in and their armies had begun to make their presence felt in France. The old diplomacy and the pre-war diplomats had allowed the war to occur through their stupidity, thought Wells. He felt that what was now needed for the prospective victors was a clear statement of peace aims, coupled with a method of ensuring that those aims would be fulfilled. Only then could another war be prevented. He was engaged fulltime in this effort, writing out sets of aims, proposing a world government, and propagandizing for his ideas. By the spring of 1918, Wells knew that if the war was to be the war to end war, it would take strong action, planning and idealism. That was why he welcomed the Russian Revolution and continued to endorse it no matter what form it took. The issues were simply too large for the old ways to continue. A world revolution, at least in ideas, had become imperative.

{p. 236} A few days later he urged the United States to enter the war, at least symbolically, so that she could be part of the peace-making effort, and within the same week offered a more detailed account of what the Balkans might look like after the war. By 1916 Wells’s experiences with the Russian language and his sons led him to urge the adoption of some sort of lingua franca to overcome misunderstandings ‘in this vitally important effort promote international understanding’. He also called for restoration of Palestine to the Jews, creating a real Judaea.

{p. 237} Wells went to work in the Cabinet propaganda office (as part of the Advisory Comittee to the Director of Propaganda, Lord Northcliffe), then located in Crewe House, where he very quickly found himself working on the general issue of what should comprise Britain’s as well as the Allies’ war aims. How should they be worded, and how, eventually, could they be carried out once the war was over? Both Masterman and Northcliffe had been badgered by Wells since early in 1915 to speed up their efforts, and to set out the record clearly in the press. To some extent Wells was co-opted because he did have so many ideas. Northcliffe even recommended, apparently, that he be made a member of the War Cabinet(!).

{p. 238} But what is known is that he continued to maintain strong ties with Walter Lippman and with Bainbridge Colby (who served during the war in the American Embassy in London). When Colonel House came to Brital as President Wilson’s emissary, he was entertained at Laston by the Countess of Warwick, with Wells at the table. The similarity between some of Wells’s ideas and the Fourteen Points address, along with some remarks in Lady Warwick’s memoirs, and several letters from Lippman, suggest that Wells may have had a hand in the material on which the address was based. In his autobiography he claimed to know very little about the matter. However, he did reprint a very long letter to Colby, which Philip Guedalla had carried to him after a discussion with them both at the Reform Club in November 1917. Wilson saw the letter, according to Colby, and so even though Wells discounted his own efforts, one should point out that that he did so after he had repudiated the League, and the Fourteen Points, as not being sufficient to bring about world peace. {i.e. not establishing a real World Government}

The intense violence of the war created a demand in many parts of the world for a massive effort to prevent further outbreaks. This led eventually to an insistence that a world-wide conference be held to set up a peaceful world, to be monitored jointly by all the nations. This arrangement, usually called a League of Nations or a League of Free Nations (the names tbe British proponents used), began to be discussed early in the war. By 1918,

{p. 239} there were few observers who did not use some variant of these terms, and to call for an implementation of the idea. A few questions were raised: whether the League would have a military force of its own, whether or not me bits of national sovereignty would have to be discarded, and whether the League would have punitive power over those who violated its rules. …

Wells addressed these issues within the context of the proposed League, calling for a voluntary sharing of Sovereignty. … Wells’s view … was that the League should be representative, should include all countries, and ought to be organized to work towards a form of world government.

The book, In the Fourth Year, was widely read, in lieu of the articles, and many newspapers urged their readers to read and think about the views presented by Wells. Walter Lippman, who edited the pieces for the New Republic, thought they were excellent, and when he came to England in August, one of his first acts was to seek out Wells for ‘a crucial meeting on this work similar to yours’. It was now widely believed that Wilson’s Fourteen Points address would be the basis for the peace conference once the war was over. Lippman had several meetings with Wells and others, and the result was a State Department document, interpreting the Fourteen Points address, released in mid-September. At about the same time Wells published three significant articles on the League and its future. He chose as his medium for these articles the Morning Post, a Tory newspaper, but one which was widely read by the people likely to go to the peace conference.

In the Post articles Wells traced the idea of a League, and the fact that the war had extended itself to civilians, thus making everyone a potential victim; he discussed the different ideas already presented, and himself proposed a central body with power to take control of armaments, shipping, distribution of staples, to provide what he described as ‘a pooling of Empires’. …

{p. 240} He specifically refuted the claim that the British Empire could go it alone, as it was already a world-wide organization.

{This was the the Tory view, much as Republican Party leaders today oppose subjecting the United States to a UN or World Court with “Universal Jurisdiction”. To defeat the Tories in the drafting of the Treaty of Versailles, Wells had some nifty footwork ahead of him. He had drafted the phrase “the war to end war”, proposing that the British Empire develop into a World State. Anglo-American Establishment leaders like Lionel Curtis endorsed this idea, but now Wells was trying to shift power and sovereignty from that Empire to a World body not in its control.}

… the war had taken a rapid turn in favour of the Allies. Time was running out. Lippman, Wells, Bainbridge Colby, and dozens of others preparing for the peace conference found themselves only partially ready. In the last week of the war, in the midst of the false armistice and the stage-posturing of the generals, Wells found time to issue a few more comments on the possible peace, but how widely they were read is another matter. On 5 November … he discussed British nationalism, then on the 6th he analysed the Foreign Office and the League of Nations. ‘We are up against an idea which saturates our histories, saturates the minds of statesmen~ saturates the press, saturates European thought and the thought of manyl spirited states outside Europe; and that is what I call the Great Power idea in human affairs. This Great Power idea and the organ and methods that embody it is the real enemy.’ He continued his assault the next day, calling for an end to secret treaties and secret diplomacy; and finally on the 8th, Friday, at the beginning of the last weekend of the war, he ended his comments: ‘It is up to the people to see that mankind does not, in a mood of weariness and reaction and resentment, slip into the old grooves of thought and action, and lose the harvests of peace.’

{p. 241} The two groups of supporters of the League had not been able to agree on ends, but the success of the Wellsian group led for a time to a rapprochement in late July. Apparently Wells had a good deal to do with a brief agreement, having urged his friends in both groups to bury the hatchet and work together. Eventually the Wells group was the sole survivor. … Time ran out here as well, and the proofs of the first pamphlet did not get to Wells until mid-December. The peace conference was already under way.

The work had simply been too slow, and it did not accomplish much. Too manv people had to read the drafts, make comments, and generally flatter their own egos. …

{p. 242} The meetings at Versailles did not deal with the realities behind the war, and although they created a League of Nations it was a toothless and insignificant body, perhaps even more so (although that is debatable) once the US decided that it would remain outside the League. Walter Lippman left the conference in Paris, and sailed for New York. After stopping briefly to see Wells, he wrote to him from the S.S. Calia.

Lippman described the peace conference as ‘not unhopeful’, but said the last two months had been lost. He told Wells that he thought the British delegation had been more in earnest than others, and that the Empire might still play a crucial role, by bringing together the white and coloured nations of the world. ‘There’s no way out for the world if vou don’t’, was his judgement. He proposed to Wells that an international organization or conference of unattached liberals of the world might be formed, which could lay out a body of doctrine for the nations to follow, ‘to act’, as it were, ‘as the intellectual foundation of the League of Nations’. By mid-May, at home in New York, Lippman was much less sanguine. He asked Wells, ‘Do you see any hope of stability in the present treaty and covenant? I confess I don’t.’

For Wells the disillusionment was as bad or worse. However, althougb he, like Lippman, looked to history for answers, he knew by this time that if changes were to be made, a new history had to be written, one which would focus on the emergence of ideas, and one which would deal with the hopes and aspirations of all people, not just the ruling classes.

{p. 270} Wells had a very strong interest in Russia. He had visited St. Petersburg and Moscow in January of 1914. Among his friends in London was Ivy Low, daughter of his former comrade, Walter Low, who had recently married Maxim Litvinov, who was to be the first ambassador to Britain of the Bolshevik state. wells stayed with them in Petrograd (once St Petersburg, it had not yet been renamed Leningrad) on his 1920 tour. Ivy’s Low’s sister was married to Helen Guest, a Wells acquaintance from the Fabian days (In fact, as we have seen, she may have been the elusive Fabian wife supposedly seduced by Wells.) Haden Guest had recently travelled in Russia, as had Bertrand Russell. Both had written articles critical of the Bolsheviks on their return to England. Wells had met Maxim Gorky as early as 1906, and although they had not yet become close friends, Wells had stayed with Gorky in Moscow in 1914. It was logical for the Bolsheviks, unhappy about British comments … to invite Wells to visit his acquaintances, in order to redress the balance.

Lev Kamenev and Leonid Krassin, trade ministers to Britain, approached Wells and asked him to come to Russia. Gorky sent him a letter as well. …

Wells received £1,000 from the Sunday Express for articles on his Russian trip … While in Russia they met Chaliapin, Zinoviev, and Chicherin, to name three who gave Wells interviews.

{Kamanev & Zinoviev led the triumvirate which took power when Lenin died: soviet-union-early.html}

{p. 273} The Russians knew (or at least the Russian intelligensia) knew they had in Wells, if not a friend, at least a well-disposed onlooker.

{p. 284} Wells’ next novel, The World of William Clissold (1926) … is a traditional volume, leading to Meanwhile and The Open Conspiracy.

{p. 285} Clissold (now speaking as Wells) discovers and discards Marx … In Book V … Wells reveals the ‘Open Conspiracy’, based on the ideas of David Lubin and F. W. Sanderson, both of whom are mentioned by name. In the conspiracy, as Wells was beginning to outline it, self-educated persons everywhere will simply, in good time, take over the world and remake it to suit the needs of the many. {“Marxism for the middle class”, it has been dubbed}

{p. 291} The Open Conspiracy (1928) also sold well. Wells … reissued it three times, once under its original title, somewhat revised, and eventually under the title What Are We To Do With Our Lives? (1931), also in two editions. …

{The Open Conspiracy is the movement to replace National Sovereignty with World Government; but since the public is alarmed about World Government, euphemisms are often used, such as “World Peace”, “Abolishing War”, “One World Or None”, “World Unity”, “The Borderless World”, “A World Without Want”, “A World Without Racism, Sexism or Militarism”, and the like}

The book was well received by Wells’ friends. Bertrand Russell read it ‘with the most complete sympathy’, and said he agreed with it entirely. He went on to discuss who would join the Conspiracy, saying Einstein was a prime candidate …

{p. 308} Wells thought that a joint air patrol … could be instituted in the world by Britain and the United States, to be followed by a joint fleet, joint police efforts, and so on, to lead the world into peace.

{p. 357} When the peace came, conservation of the world’s resources, an economic control similar to that proposed so long ago by David Lubin, control of the air, and the elimination of Toryism would be the main priorities.

{p. 445} Among others to whom Wells addressed social pleas for help were Chaim Weizmann, to whom he apologized for his general tactlessness on the matter of Jewish desire for a homeland, saying, ‘In these urgent days there is a need for fundamental solidarity in creative work that should rule out these minor resentments’; Alexandra Kollontai, whose aid was sought in getting the Declaration {of the Rights of Man} into the Soviet Union …
{end of quotes}

(2) David Lubin, Israel Zangwill and Walter Lippmann – all close Jewish colleagues of Wells

2.1 David Lubin

On February 19, 2002, at http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:9A0Of1JQKtIC:www.nettime.org/nettime.w3archive/200109/msg00358.html+%22david+lubin%22+%22louis+brandeis%22&hl=en&lr=lang_en
I found the following material on David Lubin:

‘Other influential proponents of an international, “anti-military” system of Atlantic democracies during this period included the great American historian Henry Adams, the famous British writer H.G. Wells, and the California merchant and League of Nations pioneer David Lubin. … Lubin, who in 1905 founded Rome’s Institute of World Agriculture that is today part of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, was even blunter.

‘In a remarkable letter dated 20 March 1918 to US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, he stated: “But the nations, in their assumption of the right of absolute sovereignty rule, are still under the sway of paganism. Such an assumption of absolute sovereignty is pagan. … Our earnest prayers go up to the Almighty for the success of General Allenby and of the British and Allied arms in Palestine, and the world over, now battling, in this great struggle of Democracy against Autocracy for Jehovah, the Power of Righteousness, against Odin, the power of brute force.”‘

2.2 Israel Zangwill, apart from being an important member of the Fabian Society and mentor of Wells, was a leading Zionist. PalestineRemembered.com says of him, at

‘Israel Zangwill was a prominent Anglo-Jewish writer often quoted in the British press as a spokesman for Zionism and one of the earliest organizers of the Zionist movement in Britain who visited Palestine as early as 1897.

‘Israel Zangwill, who had visited Palestine in 1897 and came face-to-face with the demographic reality, he stated in 1905 in a speech to a Zionist group in Manchester that:

STATES” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 10)

‘And he also added :

“Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of
Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United
States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25% of
them Jews ….. [We] must be prepared either to drive out by the
sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to
grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly
Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us.” (Expulsion
Of The Palestinians, p. 7- 10, and Righteous Victims, p. 140)’

So much for Wells’ & the Fabians’ “Internationalism”.

2.3 Walter Lippmann

2.3.1 The Spartacist history site says of Walter Lippman: “Walter Lippmann, the son of second-generation German-Jewish parents … In 1917 Lippmann was appointed as assistant to Newton Baker, Wilson’s secretary of war. Lippman worked closely with Woodrow Wilson and Edward House in drafting the Fourteen Points Peace Programme. He was a member of the USA’s delegation to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and helped draw up the covenant of the League of Nations.”: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAlippmann.htm. Strangely, it omits to mention that he was also a member of the Council On Foreign Relations (CFR), and later the Trilateral Commission: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&q=%22walter+lippman%22+%22Council+On+Foreign+Relations%22&btnG=Google+Search.

Although I know of no direct connection between Wells and Jacob H. Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb & Co, Schiff, a Jewish banker of Wall Street, was at the forefront of attempts to create a World Government at Versailles.

2.3.2 Cyrus Adler writes in Jacob H. Schiff: His Life and Letters, volume 2, Doubleday, Doran & Co, NY 1928:

“He was also one of the first to recognize that thinking men must put their minds to work to devise some means to avoid future wars. In spite of his unwillingness to appear publicly in the matter, he was disposed, because of his strong convictions, to take an earnest part in the League to Enforce Peace, and, on October 27, 1916, he addressed a letter to President Wilson, referring to a conversation of a month previous, and urging the President to give the principal address at a dinner which was being arranged by the League for November 24. He likewise urged Wilson to join with Lord Bryce and other leaders of world opinion to take active steps for the avoidance of future wars.” (p. 193). More at house-schiff.html.

2.3.3 The following information on Lippman is from the Spartacus site http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAlippmann.htm

{quote} Walter Lippmann, the son of second-generation German-Jewish parents, was born in New York City on 23rd September, 1889. While studying at Harvard University he became a socialist and was co-founder of the Harvard Socialist Club and edited the Harvard Monthly.

In 1911 Lincoln Steffens, the campaigning journalist, took Lippmann on as his secretary. Like Steffens, Lippmann supported Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Party in the 1912 presidential elections. Lippman’s book, A Preface to Politics (1913) was well-received and the following year he joined Herbert Croly in establishing the political weekly, the New Republic.

Lippmann rejected his earlier socialism in Drift and Mastery (1914) and in 1916 became a staunch supporter of Woodrow Wilson and the Democratic Party. In 1917 Lippmann was appointed as assistant to Newton Baker, Wilson’s secretary of war. Lippman worked closely with Woodrow Wilson and Edward House in drafting the Fourteen Points Peace Programme. He was a member of the USA’s delegation to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and helped draw up the covenant of the League of Nations.

In 1920 Lippmann left the New Republic to work for the New York World. His controversial books, Public Opinion (1922) and The Phantom Public (1925), raised doubts about the possibility of developing a true democracy in a modern, complex society.

Lippmann became editor of the New York World in 1929, but after it closed in 1931, he moved to the Herald Tribune. For the next 30 years Lippmann wrote the nationally syndicated column, Today and Tomorrow. Lippmann developed a very pragmatic approach to politics and during this period supported six Republican and seven Democratic presidential candidates.

After the Second World War, Lippmann returned to the liberal views of his youth. He upset leaders of both the Democratic and Republican parties when he opposed the Korean War, McCarthyism and the Vietnam War. Walter Lippmann died on 14th December, 1974.


2.3.4 Walter Lippmann on how Colonel House, liasing with Lord (Sir Edward) Grey, persuaded Wilson to join World War I. These articles by Lippmann show how hard he worked to get the US Congress to accept the World Court and World Army: lippmann.html.

2.3.5 Carroll Quigley on Walter Lippmann:

Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in our Time, Macmillan New York 1966:

{p. 938} More than fifty years ago the Morgan firm decided to infiltrate the Left-wing political movements in the United States. This was relatively easy to do, since these groups were starved for funds and eager for a voice to reach the people. Wall Street supplied both. The purpose was not to destroy, dominate, or take over but was really threefold: (1) to keep informed about the thinking of Left-wing or liberal groups; (2) to provide them with a mouthpiece so that they could “blow off steam,” and (3) to have a final veto on their publicity and possibly on their actions, if they ever went “radical.” There was nothing really new about this decision, since other financiers had talked about it and even attempted it earlier. What made it decisively important this time was the combination of its adoption by the dominant Wall Street financier, at a time when tax policy was driving all financiers to seek tax-exempt refuges for their fortunes, and at a time when the ultimate in Left-wing radicalism was about to appear under the banner of the Third International.

The best example of this alliance of Wall Street and Left-wing publication was The New Republic, a magazine founded by Willard Straight, using Payne Whitney money, in 1914. Straight … became a Morgan partner … He married Dorothy Payne Whitney … the sister and co-heiress of Oliver

{p. 939} Payne, of the Standard Oil “trust.” …

The New Republic was founded by Willard and Dorothy Straight, using her money, in 1914, and continued to be supported by her financial contributions until March 23, 1953. The original purpose for establishing the paper was to provide an outlet for the progressive Left and to guide it quietly in an Anglophile direction. This latter task was entrusted to a young man, only four years out of Harvard, but already a member of the mysterious Round Table group, which has played a major role in directing England’s foreign policy since its formal establishment in 1909. This new recruit, Walter Lippmann, has been, from 1914 to the present, the authentic spokesman in American journalism for the Establishments on both sides of the Atlantic in international affairs. His biweekly columns, which appear in hundreds of American papers, are copyrighted by the New York Herald Tribune which is now owned by J. H. Whitney. It was these connections, as a link between Wall Street and the Round Table Group, which gave Lippmann the opportunity in 1918, while still in his twenties, to be the official interpreter of the meaning of Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points to the British government.

{endquote} More at tragedy.html.

(3) David Lubin & H. G. Wells on One World

David Lubin: A Study in Practical Idealism

By Olivia Rossetti Agresti

University of California Press, Berkeley Ca 1941.

{p. 10} Had David Lubin grown up within the pale of settlement in Russian Poland, where he was born, he might have been a dreamer, more probably a revolutionist, but he would have been foredoomed to failure. The environment would have stified him.

{p. 11} As it was, the “conserved energy”, as he used to phrase it, vhich had come down to him as a racial inheritance through the centuries of oppression to which his people had been subjected found on American soil, and under the stimulating care of American institutions, the opportunity to expand and develop to its full. …

Writing in the last months of his life to Mr. Israel Zangwill with reference to a proposed biographical essay, Lubin says:

“It should deal (a) with the genesis of the central theme, a ‘call to service’, starting from an incident which occurred when I was four days old, and its development under maternal and Jewish influences in the New York environment; (b) its further development under Christian influences in New England until I was sixteen years of age; (c) the next stage, three years in the wilds and deserts of Arizona until nineteen years of age; (d) then the Californian experience, the entrance into commercial life, its shaping, and the influences of this central theme; a journey to the Holy Land and its influences and the purpose for which I took up the occupation of agriculture (horticulture and cereals) all actuated by this central theme, this ‘call to service.’ Next comes the entry into the actual field of service, first in the state, second in the nation, third in the international field, culminating in the upbuilding of the International Institute of Agriculture, to which fifty-seven nations now adhere under treaty.”

{p. 13} David Lubin was born in a Jewish community in a little town in Russian Poland.

{p. 66} Contact with the homeland of his race made him dream dreams, but these dreams were shaped by his American upbringing and experience. The following quotation, taken from a letter written many years later to Justice Louis Brandeis, clearly shows this:

{quote} In response to your request let me say, first of all, that in 1884 I visited Palestine and became impressed with the idea of Zionism to the extent of subsequently writing an article on the subject which was printed either in the London Jewish World or in the Jewish Chronicle, I do not remember which. In this article I favored starting the development of Palestine on industrial rather than on agricultural lines. I favored the opening of factories, to be operated by up-to-date machinery, for the manufacture of such staple goods as would find a market in the Mediterranean countries and in the interior of Asia and Africa. In fact, I was in favor of converting Palestine into a new New England, when com-

{p. 67} merce and industry on American lines would be sure to sweep the field.

This, however, was to be but the beginning. Successful commerce and industry were soon to open the way for safe financial ventures, when capital would come forward for the construclion of aqueducts to afford an ample water supply for irrigating and manufacturing purposes. The agricultural restoration of Palestine could then be taken systematically in hand; when reafforestation could be undertaken; when the ancient vineyard terraces could again be supplied with earth; when hill and dale, when mountainside and plain could again be made to blossom as the rose; when a new Palestine would arise, perhaps surpassing in grandeur the Palestine of the days of old.

But presently I bethought me of the Turk, and I was driven to the conclusion that if the Turk excels in anything he excels in the art of converting something into nothing; that in matters of progress he is uniformly inert and reactionary. And my dream faded into nothingness. {endquote}

{p. 68} He began to perceive the esoteric meaning of the long familiar tales. The religious theme instilled into him by his mother in the impressionable years of early childhood stirred within him. He realized as never before the tragedy of his race and the responsibility of belonging, as he believed, to a Messianic people sent forth to be a blessing to all the nations of the earth. While on the one hand, as we have seen the vision of the ruins of what had once been a smiling land turned his thoughts to the possibility of restoring material prosperity on modern industrial lines, and of thus procuring an economic basis on which to build up a homeland for the oppressed ghetto dwellers of Eastern Europe, on the other hand he conceived of a far nobler mission for his people than that of fulfilling the dreams of nationalistic Zionism.

{p. 69} While he aimed at achieving reform along the strictly practical lines for which his American training and experience had fitted him, yet in his eyes the important thing was not the reform considered in itself and by itself, but the reform considered as a link in the chain of progress, starting from the Primal Cause, the one Righteousness, to attain the ultimate eflect, the realization of the Kingdom on Earth, through the instrumentality of that choice band of Fighters for God designated in the Hebrew language by the name “Israel.” … he did not use the designation “Israel” in a tribal sense. In a note dated from Washington, November, 1911, addressed to Commissioner Charles P. Neil of the Bureau of Labor, Lubin explains his position on this point:

{quote} … Israel … really means all that

{p. 70} band of faithful workers of all times and of all nations who have striven foer development and civilization. {endquote}

{p. 333} On his return from America in the autumn of 1916, Lubin had made a brief stay in London, mainly to talk over his views on ocean freight rates with leading English shipping authorities, Sir Owen Philips, Sir Norman Hill, the Rt. Hon. Walter Runciman and others. On this occasion he also met Mr. H. G. Wells. “I have been interested in the International Institute of Agriculture for some years,” Mr. Wells had written to me in the summer of 1916, “and it

{p. 334} was that which made me give Italy a kind of central part in the world pacification in my ‘World set Free.'” The meeting between the writer and the man of action was graphically described in an article by Wells on whom Lubin’s personality and work made a deep impression. They met only this once, but that they kept in touch the following letters show:

Easton Glebe, Dunmow,

Oct. 1916.

My dear Mr. Lubin,

{quote} I have read your Let There be Light with great care and interest. I am now returning it to you with the two typed papers you asked me to return. I find in myself a very complete understanding of your line of thought and a very warm sympathy. You will see that in my God the Invisible King I take up a more Christian attitude than yours. I am agnostic in regard to your God and I use the word “God” to express the divine in man. You will have to allow for this proper difference in terminology when you read what I have to say. We are at one in looking to a world in which mankind is unified under God as King.

I should be very interested to know more of the history of your thought and the particulars of your life. I do not think they would be satisfactory material for a novel but I have in mind a book The Kingdom of God which might possibly be written round your work and the personalities of yourself and your mother.

I wish by the bye you could get me a copy of Let There Be Light to keep. I would like it by me.

Very sincerely yours, H. G. Wells.

Rome, Nov. 4th, 1916. {endquote}

{quote} Dear Mr. Wells:

I have received your welcome letter and intended to a swer it right then and there, but it is only by a mere scratch that I am writing now, some weeks after the time of its receipt.

{p. 335} I have been at work on my merchant marine report almost constantly from the time that I arrived; have put in I fourteen days and have only some seven poor little pages brought out. And so, for the time being, all correspondence of whatever nature is in abeyance until my report is out, when among the first few copies will be one for yourself, and let me say for Mrs. Wells.

I have disappointments and regrets every day; this old town will persist in striking out, in clanging aloud, 12 o’clock when it ought not to be more than 10.15, and then the six o’clock proposition is about the same. So much to be done, and so precious little done, and the family so large (about one billion eight hundred million). But, hullo, I am using up time now, so I mrust quit, but not before I tell you that I thank you for the pleasure I have had from your valuable books. Will tell you more about them when I get my report off the table. Last night it was after twelve when I got through with you and Teddy and Derick, and Britling. Bully for you. But say throw your finite God overboard, please. If he were rubbed on the stone and the acid poured on, he would turn green.

Did it ever strike you that the “under-dog” may have something to say, and perhaps in the near future, that may set a thing or two straight ? Oh, no; how could you think of any such thing, for in common with all the sons of Esau you have a big stick for the “under-dog”, and this Esau crowd have been so busy spitting and cursing and burning and despising and hooting and tooting that they have got to believe it all. But never mind, some day they will be treated to a surprise party, and they will know better. …

And now, good-bye for the present.

Yours sincerely,

David Lubin

P.S. “Let There Be Light” has come back, and I will take pleasure in sending it back to you again “for keeps.” {endquote}

{p. 336} {quote} International Institute of Agriculture,

Rome, May 21st, 1917.

Dear Mr. Wells:

I thank you very much for the copy of your illuminating book “God, the Invisible King”, which I have already gone over hastily during some of my spare moments. I hope some time to go over it in greater detail.

You say that you send it “in the hope of a speedy conversion.” Conversion to what? Evidently to the ideas set forth. First of all there are quite a few of these to which there is no need of my conversion, for, in common with you, I hold to them. Such are the oneness of God and the exalted duty of service. But when it comes to your “Finite God”, and to the deductions which one may draw from your hook as to the part played and to be played by Israel in the field of service, it is quite clear to me that I cannot be with you, that I cannot be converted to such views.

As to the Finite God, it seems to me that such a god would be a stranger in the universe, more of a stranger than you or I. He could only come as a creature of the infinite. The infinite, then, would be God, and the finite god would be no god at all. If I were tempted to give a definition of God I would rather say that Infinite Space is God, the great Noumenon, and that all things in space are phenomena, things acted upon by the Infinite Noumenon.

“But,” says the grocery-man, “empty space is just nothing. You can ‘t lift it nor weigh it, so how can empty space be God?”

But is the grocer-man’s opinion final? By no means; for he is so chock-full of his experience of lifting and weighing that he fails to realize that his analysis is empirical.

He fails to see that his reasoning process is limited by the laws of phenomena as they appear to him; he fails to see that beyond his range of vision there are the higher laws, higher and still higher, until they approach the Absolute, the Infinite. He seems to know one pound, ten pounds, sugar, candles, soap, as a reality, and as the end of reality. He fails to see that from the point of view of the absolute his knowledge is limited to a set of symbols, and judging by

{p. 337} these symbols he jumps to a conclusion that spce is just nothing at all, that God is only real if he can be lifted, “hefted” as it were.

But let the scholar bring this grocery-man to the laborator and show him the particles constituting his sugar, candles, soap, and the laws governing their properties, and the relations of these laws stretching out far beyond his vision until they pass from our knowable world of phenomena into the vast universe of the Noumenon, and it would then be reasonable to expect that his opinions would shift, would undergo a marked change, bringing his mind closer and closer to a truer apprehension of the relations of things, of his relation to the universal Noumenon, of his relation to God.

But the reverence engendered by this larger view of relations bids us be modest and stop short in postulating definitions or personifications of that God. This, as Maimonides tells us, was the teaching of the sages of Israel. These sages taught that it was more rational and more reverent to apprehend God through negations rather than through affirmations. {What then of the Biblical God?} They taught that we approach closer to the truth by affirming that God cannot be unjust, that he cannot be unmerciful, that he cannot be limited in knowledge or power, and that we reach a truer conception of God through such negations than through their opposites, through affirmations. So far for the God idea.

And now, my dear Mr. Wells, let me say in conclusion that my contention is not with the substance of your teaching on the subject of service; on the contrary, I heartily agree with you. My contention is with your postulates and definitions of God. Just how you can come to the conclusion of service on your postulate is beyond my comprehension, for as the true marksman must have a given point at which to aim, so the effective teacher must have a logical postulate from which to draw his deductions. Do you not think so ? With high esteem, I am

Yours very sincerely,

David Lubin {endquote}

{p. 338} {quote} Easton Glebe,

Dunmow, (May 918)

My dear Lubin

A Noumenon cannot “act upon” Phenomena. Phenomena are the aspects of Noumena in the time-space system of conscious life: This rather affects your general argument. And as for the mission of the Jewish race, that is manifestly an affair for that race which is not mine. Except for your race restriction you speak of “Israel” very much as I speak of God. What’s in a name? Your God of negatives, the God of Maimonides and Spinoza I define not by negatives but by polite doubts and call the Veiled Being. My “God” is the Israel of all mankind. Unless you translate these terms you will keep at loggerheads with my work. Really there is a close parallelism between “God” as I understand Him, your “Israel” and (except for the association with the man Jesus) the “Spirit-Christ” of Pauline Christianity.

Yours ever,

H. G. Wells. {endquote}

{p. 346} Whereas the International Institute of Agriculture founded by the far-seeing initiative of H. M. the King of Italy has, during the whole period of the war been the center of world-wide information and data needed for the solution of the agricultural problems which the governments had to deal with, and has been established to ensure economic benefits to all the adhering countries, and is empowered under letter (f), article 9, of the Treaty to take up measures for the protection of the interests of farmers and for the improvement of their conditions; therefore be it

Resolved: that the International Institute of Agriculture draw the attention of the adhering Governments to the fact that in addition to the services it now renders them, the Institute could be availed of by the League of Nations as one of the organs of the aforesaid federated activities; and it respectfully suggests to the adhering governments to bring this to the attention of the Conference for the form tion of the League of Nations.

{end of quotes}

(4) Wells against Zionism

H. G. Wells, Travels of a Republican Radical in Search of Hot Water, Penguin, Harmondsworth, England 1939.

{p. 53} CHAPTER V


I MET a Jewish friend of mine the other day and he asked me, “What is going to happen to the Jews?” I told him I had rather he had asked me a different question, “What is going to happen – to mankind ?”

“But my people—-” he began.

“That,” said I, “is exactly what is the matter with them.”

When I was a schoolboy in a London suburb I never heard of the “Jewish Question”. I realised later that I had Jewish and semi-Jewish school-fellows, but not at the time. They were all one to me. The Jews, I thought, were people in the Bible, and that was that. I think it was my friend Walter Low who first suggested that I was behaving badly to a persecuted race. Walter, like myself, was a University crammer and a journalist competing on precisely equal terms with myself. One elder brother of his was editor of the St. James’s Gazette and another was The Times correspondent in Washington and both were subsequently knighted. Later a daughter of

{p. 54} Walter’s was to marry Litvinov, who became the Russian Foreign Minister. I could not see that they were at any disadvantage whatever in England. Nevertheless Walter held on to the idea that he was treated as an outcast, and presently along came Zangwill in a state of racial championship, exacerbating this idea that I was responsible for the Egyptian and Babylonian captivities, the destruction of Jerusalem, the ghettos, auto-da-fes – and generally what was I going to do about it?

My disposition was all for letting bygones be bygones.

When the war came in 1914 some of us were trying to impose upon it the idea that it was a War to End War, that if we could make ourselves heard sufficiently we might emerge from that convulsion with some sort of World Pax, a clean-up of the old order, and a fresh start for the economic life of mankind as a whole. No doubt we were very ridiculous to hope for anything of the sort, and through the twenty years of fatuity that have folowed the Armistice, the gifted young have kept up a chorus of happy derision, ‘War to End war Ya ha!” In the last year or so that chorus has died down – almost as if the gifted young had noticed something. But throughout those tragic and almost fruitless four years of war, Zangwill and the Jewish spokesmen elaborately and energetically demonstrating that they cared not a rap for the troubles and

{p. 55} dangers of English, French, Germans, Russians, Americans or of any other people but their own. They kept their eyes steadfastly upon the restoration of the Jews – and what was worse in the long run, they kept the Gentiles acutely aware of this.

The Zionist movement was a resounding advertisement to all the world of the inassimilable spirit of the more audible Jews. In England, where there has been no social, political or economic discrimination against the Jews for several generations, there is a growing irritation at the killing and wounding of British soldiers and Arabs in pitched battles fought because of this Zionist idea. It seems to our common people an irrelevance, before the formidable issues they have to face on their own account. They are beginning to feel that if they are to be history-ridden to the extent of restoring a Jewish state that was extinguished early two thousand years ago, they might just as well go back another thousand years and sacrifice their sons to restore the Canaanites and Philistines who possessed the land before the original Jewish conquest.

It is very unwillingly that I make this mild recognition of a certain national egotism the Jews as a people display … they do remain a peculiar people in

{p. 56} the French- and English-speaking communities largely by their own free choice, because they are history-ridden and because they are haunted by a persuasion that they are a chosen people with disinctive privileges over their Gentile fellow-creatures.

{p. 57} The wisdom of our species was not enough to make the Great War of 1914-18 a “war to end war” or to achieve any solution ot the economic difficulties that were pressing upon us. For two decades the Foreign Offices, the morc they have changed the more they have remained the same thing. After 1918-19, they resumed the dear old game of conflicting sovereign powers, with gusto. The financial and business worlds could think of nothing better than to snatch back economic life from the modified public control under which it had fallen. There was a certain cant of reconstruction and rationalisalion, which as presently dropped.

{p. 58} Many of us had counted on the active Jewish mentality and the network of Jewish understanding about the world for a substantial contribution to that immense mental task. Such grealy imaginative Jews as (greatest of all in my opinion) David Lubin, Disraeli, Marx and so forth, had given an earnest of the possibility of a self-forgetful race, “sprinkling among nations”, and giving itself –

{p. 59} not altogether without recompense – to the service of mankind_ We have been disappointed.

No people in the world have caught the fever of irrational nationalism that has been epidemic in the world since 1918, so badly as the Jews. They have intruded into an Arab country in a mood of intense racial exhibitionism. Instead of learning the language of their adopted country they have vamped up Hebrew. They have treated the inhabitants of Palestine practically as non-existent people, and yet these same Arabs are a people more purely Semitic than themselves. Nationalism, like a disease germ, begets itself, and they have blown up Lawrence’s invention of Arab nationalism into a flame. They have addcd a new and increasing embarrassment to the troubles of the strained and possibly disintegrating British Empire.

… The Jews are not the only people who have been elucated to believe themseles peculiar and chosen. The Germans, for example, have produced a very good parallel to Zionism in the Nordic theory. they, too, it seems, are a chosen people. They too must keep themselves heroically pure. I believe that the current Nazi

{p. 60} gospel is actually and traceably the Old Testament turned inside out. It is one step from the Lutheran Church to the Brown House. When I was a boy I got a lot of the same sort of poison out o f J. R. Green’s Hisory of the English People in ihe form of “Anglo-Saxonism”. I know only too well the poisonous charm of such a phrase 2S Milton’s “God’s Englishman”.

{p. 61} The accepted tradition of the Jews is largely nonsense. The are no more a “pur ” race than the English or the Germans or the hundred per cent. Americans. There never was a “Promise”; they were never “Chosen”; their distinctive observances, their Sabbaqth, their Passover, their queer calendar, are mere traditional oddities of no present significance whatever. …

The only way out from the prcscnt human catastrophe for Jew and Gentile alike, is a world-wide, conscious educational emancipation. In books, universities, colleges, schools, newspapers, plays, assemblies, we want incessant, ruthless truth-telling about these old legends that divide and antagonise and waste us.

{end of quotes}

5) Wells was a Communist of the Trotskyist-Fabian kind

Trotskyists support Free Trade, because their first objective is getting rid of the independence of countries: xTrots.html.

H. G. Wells was a Communist; Bertrand Russell was also sympathetic to Communism. What both rejected was the Stalinist variety. Here is some evidence:

(5.1) Norman and Jeanne MacKenzie, The Life of H. G. Wells: The Time Traveller, The Hogarth Press, London 1987.

{p. 434 FOOTNOTE} Though Wells openly attacked the Communist Party for years, ridiculed Marx, and thought the Soviet regime had betrayed the revolution, he gave money to Communist causes and had many associates who were party members. Just before the 1945 general election he wrote a letter to the Daily Worker to say that “I am an active supporter of the reconstituted Communist Party. I want to vote to that effect”, and complaining that there was no Communist candidate in his constituency… {endquote}

(5.2) J. Percy Smith, ed., Bernard Shaw and H . G. Wells, University of Toronto Press, Toronto 1995.


Shaw outlived Wells by four years. He died on 2 November 1950, and his body was cremated at Golders Green four days later. His ashes were mingled with those of Charlotte and scattered in the grounds of the house at Ayot St Lawrence.

What Wells might have written in an obituary notice had he outlived Shaw is for any reader of the correspondence to imagine, as he or she may wish. In 1945 the London Daily Express, in a moment of journalistic foresight, invited the two to write obituary articles about each other. Shaw refused, but Wells agreed, and his article entitled ‘G.B.S. – A Memoir by H.G. Wells,’ appeared on the day after Shaw’s death. Its tone is more personal and unrestrained than that of the usual obituary notice. Yet since Shaw had written a comparable piece entitled ‘The Testament of Wells,’ published in the Tribune on 27 March 1942 (see Letter 14), it may interest readers of their letters to read what the two old men had to say about each other after half a century of sparring. …

The Testament of Wells {by Shaw, about Wells}

The last sixty years have seen the rise of two new sects, the Wellsians and the Shavians, with a large overlap. The overlap may suggest that as our doctrine must be the same, our mental machinery must be the same also. But in fact no tvo machines for doing the same work could be more different than our respective brains. Ecologically (H. G.’s favourite word) and intellectually I am a seventeenth-century Protestant Irishman usinlg the mental processes and technical craft of Swift and Voltaire, whilst Wells is an intensely English nineteenth-century suburban cockney, thinking anyhow, writing anyhow, and always doing both uncommonly well. The doctrine in my hands is a structure on a basis of dispassionate economic and biological theory: in his it is a furi ous revolt against unlbealable facts and exasperting follies visible as such to his immense vision and intelligence where the ordinary Briton sees nothing wrong but a few cases that are dealt with by the police. He has neither time nor patiellce for theorising, and probably agrees with that bishop whose diocese I forget, but who said very acutely that I would never reach the Celestial City because I would not venture beyond the limits of a logical map. These differences between us are vely fortunate; for our sermons complement instead of repeating one another; you must read us both to become a complete Wellshavian.

When Wells burst on England there were no Wellshavians; but there were Wellshavians, alias Fabians, who had the start of him by ten years, and had the advantage of having been caught by the literature of Socialism in their mid-twenties, when he was in his teens, too young to take it in to its full depth. …

{p. 217} Now it happens most unfortunately and quite unaccountably that his pet aversion is Karl Marx. Marx’s first

{p. 218} beloved children died of slow starvation, which wrecked his health and shortened his own life. His two youngest daughters committed suicide. His own wife was driven crazy by domestic worry. And yet he managed to write a book which changed the mind of the world in favour of Wells and nerved Lenin and Stalin to establish a new civilisation, largely Wellsian, in Russia. Yet Wells … will belittle the Russian revolution and declare that the vital issue between experimenting with Socialism in a single country and waiting for an impossible world revolution was only a wretched personal squabbie between Stalin and Trotsky. Happily, after raving like this for pages and pages, he comes out at last on the perfectly sound ground that it is England’s business not only to make the same inevitable revolution in its own way in its own country (Stalinism) but to make an equally successful job of it without any of the mistakes and violences …

{p. 219} 27th March 1942 {end}

(5.3) Wells and the Webbs supported Trotsky (against Stalin) at the time of his Expulsion from the USSR:

Dmitri Volkogonov, Trotsky: The Eternal Revolutionary, tr. & ed. Harold Shukman, HarperCollinsPublishers, London 1996.

{p. 320} … the Ilyich manoeuvred slowly alongside the quay … in Constantinople … {p. 321} Trotsky went on writing, meeting journalists and seeking channels of contact with his supporters in oher countries. Messages of support and offers of help came from Rosmer and Paz in Paris, the critic Edmund Wilson in the USA, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, H.G. Wells and Herbert Samuel in England, among others. He felt much encouraged. {end quote}

(5.4) H. G . Wells, After Democracy, London, Watts & Co., 1932.

{p. 330; pbk p. 375} But the rulers of the new World-State, as their enlargements of the Air and Sea Police made manifest … Nowhere at first was there any armed insurrectionary movement. We realize from this how complete had been the collapse of the organized patriotic states of the World War period. {end}

{What was the British Empire, if not a kind of organized patriotism?}

(5.5) Bertrand Russell, Roads to Freedom, published in 1918 before he had visited Bolshevik Russia:

“If the Russian Revolution had been accompanied by a revolution in Germany, the dramatic suddenness of the change might have shaken Europe, for the moment, out of its habits of thought: the idea of fraternity might have seemed, in the twinkling of an eye, to have entered the world of practical politics; and no idea is so practical as the idea of the brotherhood of man, if only people can be startled into believing in it. If once the idea of fraternity between nations were inaugurated with the faith and vigour belonging to a new revolution, all the difficulties surrounding it would melt away, for all of them are due to suspicion and the tyranny of ancient prejudice. Those who (as is common in the English-speaking world) reject revolution as a method, and praise the gradual piecemeal development which (we are told) constitutes solid progress, overlook the effect of dramatic events in changing the mood and the beliefs of whole populations. A simultaneous revolution in Germany and Russia would no doubt have had such an effect, and would have made the creation of a new world possible here and now.” (Roads to Freedom, Unwin paperback, London 1977, p. 120).

(5.6) H. G. Wells, The Open Conspiracy, in H. G. Wells, The Open Conspiracy and Other Writings, London, 1933 {the 1933 edition bears no publisher’s name}.

{p. 14} The idea of reorganizing the affairs of the world on quite a big scale … has broken out all over the place, thanks largely to the Russian Five Year Plan. …

{p. 21} IV THE REVOLUTION IN EDUCATION …. The old-world teachers and schools have to be reformed or replaced. …


{p. 24} The word “God” is in most minds so associated with the concept of religion that it is abandoned only with the greatest reluctance.

{p. 25} …. Man’s soul is no longer his own. It is, he discovers, part of a greater being which lived before he was born and will survive him. The idea of a survival of the definite individual with all the accidents and idiosyncrasies of his temporal nature upon him dissolves to nothing in this new view of immortality. {editor’s note: this is a Jewish view}

{p. 28} But it is possible now to imagine an order in human affairs from which these evils have been largely or entirely eliminated. More and more people are coming to realize that such an order is a material possibility …. Other-worldliness become unnecessary. {not a Christian idea; more like that of the USSR}

{p. 30} Let us make clear what sort of government we are trying to substitute for the patchwork of to-day. It will be a new sort of direction with a new psychology. The method of direction of such a world commonweal is not likely to imitate the methods of existing sovereign states. It will be something new and altogether different. …

The Open Conspiracy, the world movement for the supercession or enlargement or fusion of existing political, economic, and social institutions … A lucid, dispassionate, and immanent criticism is the primary necessity, the living spirit of a world civilization. The Open Conspiracy is essentially such a criticism … Their directive force will be (I) an effective criticism having the quality of science {rule by scientific “experts”} …


Pitirim Sorokin wrote of the visits of Wells and Bertrand Russell to Russia in 1920, in his book Leaves From A Russian Diary (E. P. Dutton & Co, New York 1924):

{p. 243} The English Labor Delegation, H. G. Wells and Bertrand Russell, like other foreigners, saw principally what the Communists wanted to show them; they came in touch with few non-Communists, nor would they have been able to speak with many such had they so desired. They simply swallowed what ever bait the Soviet leaders offered them and went home impressed with the dictatorship of the proletariat, “endless Communist enthusiasm,” and the devotion of the people to the Soviet Government. I did not meet Bertrand Russell, but friends of mine did meet him and made what efforts they could to enlighten him as to the true condition of affairs.

I was present at the meeting in the Palace of Labor, from which most real laborers were excluded, and I saw something of H. G. Wells who, from his arrival, was placed under the constant guardianship of Gorky. Wells visited the Academy of Science, but he could not talk with J. Pavlov or other dis-

{p. 244} tinguished academicians. Gorky did not take him through the University, but showed him only its one decently equipped building, the physical laboratory. A dinner was given Wells in the House of Arts, with clean table cloths, clean dishes, and better food than any of the intellectuals had seen in years. There was even meat on that table. But to give it a proletarian appearance, the spoons were of wood. To create a truly liberal atmosphere, a number of University professors and literary men were invited, although most of the guests were Communists, and two Chekhists were on hand to watch the counter- revolutionaries. Indignant at the betrayal of truth by these men, I decided to make a speech, although I could not then use the English language. Addressing Wells, but really speaking to the Communists, I explained the real situation and the appalling campaign of murder which was being carried on in the name of liberty. I spoke moderately, for one does with the hangman in the room, but I must have spoken to the point, for Gorky suddenly interrupted, saying that such speeches were inadmissable.

“Then why are we here?” I asked. “Are we invited only to assist in deceiving this great English writer?” At this several celebrated Russian writers, to show their indignation, rose and left the room, crying: “We refuse to be classed with liars.” Amphitheatroff, an eminent novelist, remained, saying to me: “I am going to try to finish your speech.” He did manage to speak briefly, but Gorky made him take his seat, declaring that what he was saying was “improper.” Gorky’s own

{p. 245} speech was a sweeping defense of the Communist Government, and made him very popular with them. But it cost him the respeet of the intellectuals, many of whom after that evening would never take his hand. As for me, even before the dinner to Wells was over, I left the hall and once more, for my “health’s sake,” disappeared.

{endquote} More at kronstadt.html.

This is important, for it shows who was in charge of the “Open Conspiracy”. Wells was being deceived by those running the regime; so they, not he, were running it.


Wells, a closet Trotskyist in the British Establishment, advocate of One World, wrote

“Socialism, if it is anything more than a petty tinkering with economic relationships is a renucleation of society. The family can remain only as a biological fact. Its economic and educational autonomy are inevitably doomed. The modern state is bound to be the ultimate guardian of all children and it must assist, place, or subordinate the parent as supporter, guardian and educator; it must release all human beings from the obligation of mutual proprietorship, and it must refuse absolutely to recognize or enforce any kind of sexual ownership. It cannot therefore remain neutral when such claims come before it. It must disallow them.”

(Experiment in Autobiography, Gollancz, London, 1934, vol. ii, p. 481).

(6) Lenin’s Opposition to the Treaty of Versailles

Lenin sent the Red Army to invade Poland in 1920. This is comparable to Hitler’s invasion of Poland. For Hitler, Poland was only a stepping-stone to the East; but for Lenin, Poland was only a stepping-stone to Germany.


Bertrand Russell described, in a private letter, Americanised Jews’ role in creating Bolshevism

In the paperback The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell (George Allen & Unwin, London 1975), it’s on pp. 354-5:

{p. 354) To Ottoline Morell

Hotel Continental


25th June 1920

Dearest O

I have got thus far on my return, but boats are very full and it may be a week before I reach England. I left Allen in a nursing home in Reval, no longer in danger, tho’ twice he had been given up by the Doctors. Partly owing to his illness, but more because I loathed the Bolsheviks, the time in Russia was infinitely painful to me, in spite of being one of the most interesting things I have ever done. Bolshevism is a close tyrannical bureaucracy, with a spy system more elaborate and terrible than the Tsar’s, and an aristocracy as insolent and unfeeling, composed of Americanised Jews. No vestige of liberty remains, in thought or speech or action. I was stifled and oppressed by the weight of the machine as by a cope of lead. Yet I think it is the right government for Russia at this moment. If you ask yourself how Dostoevsky’s characters should be governed, you will understand. Yet it is terrible. They are a nation of artists, down to the simplest peasant; the aim of

{p. 355} the Bolsheviks is to make them industrial and as Yankee as possible. Imagine yourself governed in every detail by a mixture of Sidney Webb and Rufus Isaacs, and you will have a picture of modern Russia. I went hoping to find the promised land.

All love – I hope I shall see you soon.

Your B.


The same letter appears in volume two of the hardback, 3-volume edition of Russell’s autobiography, The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell: 1914-1944, Little, Brown & Co., Boston 1968, p. 172.

An image of p. 172 in volume 2 of the hardback edition is at russell.jpg.

The Jewish identities of Lenin and Trotsky: lenin-trotsky.html.

Bertrand Russell and One World: oneworld.html.


islamisation……..or judeaisation

Arnold J. Toynbee was a leading historian of civilization, but also a propagandist for the “British conspiracy” One-World goals of Cecil Rhodes’ Round Table group.

He wrote, “Judaism is a development of the Pre-Exilic religion of Judah that was created in and by the Babylonian diaspora and was imposed by it on the Jewish population in Judaea. … There has also been the aim of converting the gentile world to the worship of Yahweh under the aegis of a world-empire centred on Eretz Israel and ruled by ‘the Lord’s Anointed’: a coming human king of Davidic lineage.” (Reconsiderations, p. 486).

“The guilt – or merit – of having put Jesus to death is ascribed in the Talmud to the Jews, not to the Romans.” (p. 481) : toynbee.html.

David Lloyd George, Prime Minister of Britain, explained in his Memoirs why his government made “a contract with Jewry” (the Balfour Declaration) in 1917. Leopold Amery, author of the final draft of that contract, acted for the British side but secretly identified as Jewish. Could he represent both parties simultaneously? If so, why keep his Jewish identity secret? Was a conflict of interest involved? His son was executed as a Nazi collaborator: l-george.html.

Dostoievsky’s non-fiction work The Diary of a Writer, published serially from 1873 to 1871: “… it is not for nothing that over there the Jews are reigning everywhere over stock-exchanges; it is not for nothing that they control capital … and … are also the masters of international politics … what is going to happen in the future is known to the Jews themselves: their reign, their complete reign is approaching !”: dostoievsky.html.

Trotsky explicitly promoted Radical Feminism, Youth Rebellion, Communal Childrearing and the Destruction of the Family, in his book The Revolution Betrayed. He describes the attack on all tradition launched by the Bolsheviks, and Stalin’s reversal of its extremes. Seeing the real Trotsky: trotsky.html.

Yuri Slezkine’s book The Jewish Century tells how Communism began Jewish, but, through Stalin’s seizure of control, diverged from Jewish nationalism: slezkine.html.

Marxist policy on farming: small private farms cf communal farms and state farms: marx-vs-the-peasant.html.

(1) Judaism and a Universalist World Order (2) Revolutionary Equalism as a Project of Judaism (3) Stalin vs the Trotskyist-Zionist Alliance (4) The Death of Stalin: a Coup d’Etat (5) Gorbachev and Convergence between the USSR & the West, towards a World Civilization (6) Jewish Power in Capitalist Countries (7) Jewish Particularism in Israel (8) Jewish Engagements with non-Jews (9) Jewish Christians (10) Gandhi on The Jews (11) Guy Rundle: Not a Holocaust, just Ethnic Cleansing (12) Ron David, Arabs & Israel For Beginners

The overlap between Zionism and Communism makes it difficult to treat these as entirely separate movements. A faction of atheistic Jews set up the Soviet Union, and instituted the despotic reign over non-Jews, but Stalin, a non-Jew who got to the top, later stole their conspiracy, for which he was eventually killed. There was an going struggle within the Communist movement between the Jewish and non-Jewish factions; one might say that the Jewish Question created the USSR, but also destroyed it.

Many Communists in the early years were Zionists as well – Arthur Koestler was one (koestler.html) – but the conflict between the USSR and Israel, which was really a struggle between two centres of Socialism or OneWorldism, forced Jewish Communists to choose. If Stalin had not gained power, they may have been able to have both.

The text of Rome and Jerusalem: A Study in Jewish Nationalism (1862) by Moses Hess, the ‘Red Rabbi” who converted both Marx and Engels to Communism, and then came out as a Zionist: rome-and-jerusalem.html.

Spinoza formulates atheistic Judaism, the religion of Jewish Communists: spinoza-pantheism.html.

Vladimir Pozner on Why Jews left the Soviet Union – Max Shpak on Why the West Betrays Russians: jewish-emigration-ussr.html.

Claims that the One-World conspiracy is “British”: british-conspiracy.html. A graphic overview called One World Conspiracy – “British” or “Jewish”? A Jewish one inside the British one, depicting the three factions of the “One World” conspiracy, is at british-conspiracy.gif. Feel free to make copies and transparencies of it.

(1) Judaism and a Universalist World Order

H. G. Wells represents the anti-Zionist faction of the “One Worlders”: opensoc.html.

David ben Gurion, first Prime Minister of Israel, represents the Zionist faction of the “One World” movement. In 1962, LOOK magazine invited him and other leaders to picture the world 25 years into the future, i.e. in 1987. His article published in the issue of January 16, 1962 shows amazing prescience. Despite the animosities of the Cold War then under way, ben Gurion sees Eastern Europe being torn from the USSR and joined with Western Europe; and China (even Mao’s China) and Japan joining the US in what seems the first published depiction of APEC.

A World-Government has been created, with regional blocs in Europe, the USSR and the Pacific Rim, and a Supreme Court for Mankind has been established in Jerusalem, as well as a shrine commemmorating the Jewish role in the bringing-together of mankind: David ben Gurion LOOK magazine Jan 16, 1962: bengur50.jpg. To see it at higher resolution (scroll down to see text): bengur62.jpg.

The text is at tmf.html.

Zionism is not only about a Jewish state; it is about a Jewish world-order. A. J. Van der Bent sympathetically expresses the Jewish viewpoint in his book The Utopia of World Community (SCM Press, London 1973). This book, issued by a member of the World Council of Churches, has sections on Baha’ism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism & Hinduism. On Baha’ism it says:

“{p. 8} One of the few religions which still has the phrase ‘world brotherhood’ officially on its banner is Bahai’ism. … It aims to establish a unity of the human race and the unity of all religions.”

It omits to mention that Bahai’ism supports World Government: http://government.faithweb.com/list.html; its headquarters are in Haifa: http://www.uga.edu/bahai/News/053101.html.

It is very unsympathetic to Islam:

“{p. 13} Islam cannot but continue to subscribe to the strategy of ‘holy war’, believing that Islam can never politically be defeated. The whole world, eschatologically speaking, must and will be subdued and won over to the Islamic faith. Unbelievers will be destroyed. Muslims themselves must answer the questions whether Islam is capable of responding to the unprecedented challenge of Western atheism, secularization and separation of church and state, and whether the Qur’an as eternally valid and unalterable holy writ can give guidance for future world crises.”

but it is very sympathetic to Judaism:

“{p. 13} The eleventh chapter of the book of Genesis tells the story of a ‘single people with a single language’ building the tower of Babel. God came down to see the tower and ‘scattered the sons of man over the whole face of the earth’. The very next chapter records the story of Abraham’s calling. He is led by God through the chaotic world of many peoples and races to the centre of a new mankind – the land of Canaan. Henceforth the nations will only be blessed by this one man and this one people, Israel. All the nations of the world will be united again into one people by this one nation. It is wrong to regard Israel’s ‘particularism’ as something set over against its ‘universalism’, or even opposed to it. In God’s plan of salvation Israel will fulfil its ‘particular’ calling and function only in the context of and for the sake of a universal purpose. Israel’s special role lasts from the scattering of mankind in Babel to mankind’s being gathered in again in Zion. It performs the representative role of being the one people which mankind originally was. Its particularism as a people has nothing to do with a nationalistic self-consciousness and self-defence. It results from its spiritual calling: to win the nations back to God by communicating the Torah to them.”

Karl Kautsky, a German Jewish Marxist, on (i) Thomas More’s role in Communism (ii) the Church’s alliance with the Normans (iii) how the Christian Church developed hostility to the Jews: Kautsky’s writings: kautsky.html.

S. G. F. Brandon shows that what we know as Christianity emerged from the Roman defeat of the Jewish revolt of 66-70: jewish-revolt.html.

(2) Revolutionary Equalism as a Project of Judaism

Two good sources on revolutionary equalism are J. L. Talmon, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy; and James H. Billington, Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith. These books ignore the specifically Jewish role, but the Jewish role is described by Waton, Disraeli and Ginsberg (below).

Rabbi Harry Waton was a religious Jew (not fundamentalist), and also a Communist. In his 1939 book A Program FOR THE JEWS: An Answer TO ALL ANTI-SEMITES: A PROGRAM FOR HUMANITY, he expounds on the connection between the two. Of course, he does not speak for all Jews: he falls between Trotsky (an atheistic Communist) and the religious fundamentalists in Israel. Since Jewry does not have a pope (not yet, anyway – it will have a pope, i.e. a high priest, when the Third Temple is built), Rabbi Waton’s voice is as good as any other, and he speaks with unusual candour.

Communism, Rabbi Waton says, is Judaism’s project for the world. All other religions are other-worldly; only Judaism lives for this world, and specifically for a political program which unifies and equalises mankind.

excerpts: (1) Rabbi Harry Waton, Nazism is an imitation of Judaism: naz-jud.html (2) Rabbi Harry Waton, The Jews are a People, not a Race: people.html (3) Rabbi Harry Waton, A Jewish View of the non-Jewish Religions: religion.html (4) Rabbi Harry Waton, God’s Mandate to the Jews: mandate.html (5) Rabbi Harry Waton, The Jews are an Intellectual Aristocracy: intelect.html.

{p. 138} The communists are against religion, and they seek to destroy religion; yet, when we look deeper into the nature of communism, we see that it is essentially nothing else than a religion. That the communists seek to destroy all existing religions is not remarkable; all new religions had first to destroy the existing religions, to clear the terrain for its own existence. This was the case of Judaism, Christianity, Mohammedanism, Buddhism, and all other religions. Next, when we disregard the scientific cloak of Marxism, we see that in essence it is nothing else than religion. Marx believed that he was a scientist, and he hated metaphysics; yet, he was the greatest metaphysician of modern times. And the greatness of Marx consists in just this that he was a religious metaphysician. His scientific theories may prove false, but his religious perception of the destiny of mankind will endure forever. {endquote}

full text: Zipped version, with explanatory footnotes and commentary Waton Zipped (200 K): watonpgm.zip.

“Colonel” Edward House’s “novel” of 1912, Philip Dru: Administrator, influenced Woodrow Wilson’s policies; and Jacob Schiff’s campaigns for Zionism and World Government: house-schiff.html.



3 responses to “A Fabian Socialist Dream Come True

  1. Arthur Koestler on Communism, Zionism, and being a Jew: koestler.html.

    The CIA infiltrating the Left. The Neocons are former Trotskyists who support Zionism, but retain many Trotskyist ideas. They support Globalization, oppose the self-reliant nation-state, endorse open borders (except, perhaps, for Moslems), oppose censorship of pornography, and mostly oppose Government involvement in “morality” issues such as homosexuality. Learn how to spot the Neocons in the media: cia-infiltrating-left.html.

    Jewish leadership of the New Left’s Cultural Revolution:

    Benjamin Disraeli, one of the builders of the British Empire, made some fascinating observations about the Jewish contribution to Western Civilisation, and also to the revolutionary movements: Quotes from Benjamin Disraeli’s writings.

    Some quotes from Benjamin Ginsberg, on the Jewish role in both Capitalism and Communism: Ginsberg on Jews and the State

    Bertrand Russell on Americanised Jews’ role in creating Bolshevism: the text of the letter from his autobiography (in paperback, The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, George Allen & Unwin, London 1975, p. 354; in hardback, The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell: 1914-1944, Little, Brown & Co., Boston 1968, p. 172.). See an image of Russell’s letter at russell.jpg.

    Robert Wilton, St Petersburg correspondent for the Times of London, also documented the role of atheistic Jews in creating Bolshevism.

    The Zinoviev Letter, encouraging a Communist revolution in England in 1924, and Volkogonov’s account of the Comintern: the Zinoviev Letter.

    Pitirim Sorokin and Dmitri Volkogonov describe the Kronsdadt Massacre and Trotsky’s Role.

    Extracts from the first Soviet Constitution, the Russian Constitution of 1918.

    The complete USSR Constitution of 1924, committed to a World Federalism (a World Soviet Federation federating all countries within the USSR): USSR Constitution 1924.

  2. Pitirim Sorokin and Dmitri Volkogonov describe the Kronstadt Massacre and Trotsky’s Role. Peter Myers, July 11, 2002; update January 19, 2009. My comments are shown {thus}; write to me at contact.html. You are at http://mailstar.net/kronstadt.html. A soviet was a “workers’ council”. The Kronstadt Massacre showed that “worker control via the soviets” was a myth, right from the start of the USSR. Instead, the Bolsheviks ruled by “Democratic Centralism”. (1) Bolsheviks elicit Anarchist support but lose it as they impose Dictatorship & Terror (2) Kronstadt sailors proclaim “Soviets without Communists” (3) Pitirim Sorokin, Leaves From A Russian Diary (4) Dmitri Volkogonov, Trotsky: the Eternal Revolutionary (1) Bolsheviks elicit Anarchist support but lose it as they impose Dictatorship & Terror THE CREATION OF THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL by Professor Gerhard Rempel http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/stalin/lectures/Comintern.html The anarchists had always stood for revolution, though some of them wanted this revolution to be achieved, not by bloodshed but by the peaceful means of a general strike; this did not apply to all anarcho-syndicalists, least of all to the Spanish movement. Thus, in more than one respect, the Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the fulfillment of the dreams of international anarchism. Even its form appealed deeply to them. Bakunin was the first Russian revolutionary to conceive the idea of a revolutionary movement led and directed by a small circle of select conspirators, but carried on by the spontaneous rising of the largest masses. Finally, the Soviet regime had something deeply akin to anarchism. Had it been a persistent reality, and not an incident in the evolution of a party dictatorship, it would have been anarchism in full. For the Soviets, elected by the masses, directly responsible to them, getting no special reward for their work, locally and regionally independent, must be and were the ideal of anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism. Accordingly Lenin, as early as 1917, had expressed in State and Revolution the idea that Bolshevism, on the international battle-field, must seek the alliance of the best elements of the anarchists against the socialist traitors. But its is obvious that the successes the Comintern scored in this milieu could not last. Not a single one of the anarchist contacts thus established lasted for more than two or three years. The anarchists broke with the Comintern in disgust as soon as the dictatorship of the party, the Cheka, and the Red Army had fully developed; admiration turned into deep hatred. (2) Kronstadt sailors proclaim “Soviets without Communists” http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/stalin/lectures/NEP.html THE NEW ECONOMIC POLICY by Professor Gerhard Rempel Just before the X Congress of the Party in early 1921, Lenin declared that socialism could be built in Russia only on one of two conditions: if there was an international socialist revolution, or if there was a compromise with the peasant majority within the country. The essence of the New Economic Policy which he adopted soon afterwards was acceptance of a compromise with the peasantry. The Bolshevik theoretician Riazanov labeled the NEP “the peasant Brest,” that is to say, a temporary truce was concluded with the peasant adversary, as with the German Empire at Brest-Litovsk. In reluctantly accepting the terms of Brest-Litovsk, Lenin had not given up hope that a revolutionary situation would still develop in the West. In 1919, when Communist regimes appeared briefly in central Europe and in 1920, when Red armies were approaching Warsaw and hoping to reach Berlin, such hopes revived. However, even though the Comintern tried twice more to foment a revolution in Germany, by 1921 it was plain enough that the Russian Communists could not count on their foreign brethren to solve their immediate problems. These problems were domestic. Peasant risings had erupted in the south and east of Russia, for centuries the regions from which jacqueries had sprung. As demobilization of the Red Army got under way in September 1920, rural riots, the most serious led by Antonov in Tambov, broke out and continued to smolder despite punitive measures. Tambov was in fact not pacified until 1924, and months after the promulgation of the NEP, the army general staff reported that twenty thousand “bandits” were operating throughout south Russia and the Ukraine. The climax of anti-Communist unrest, involving as Lenin himself admitted “discontent not only among a considerable part of the peasantry but among the workers as well,” came with the uprising in Kronstadt in March 1921. Kronstadt had been a great Tsarist naval base, but during 1917 its sailors had become one of the strongest bulwarks of the Bolshevik cause. Its location on an island in sight of Petrograd made the political orientation of its garrison most important. During the Civil War, many of the most active leaders during the 1917 events had gone off to become Red political and military officers in various districts, and in 1921 most of its personnel consisted of new peasant recruits. The uprising in March fleetingly threw off Communist rule and proclaimed the slogan “Soviets without Communists.” (3) Pitirim Sorokin, Leaves From A Russian Diary, E. P. Dutton & Co, New York 1924. {p. 242} In October, 1920, the “night visitors” went to my Petrograd address and demanded “comrade” Sorokin. Truthfully my friends told the men that I no longer lived there, and that they did not know where I was. When they asked for what crime I wanted the men answered: “For banditry.” “That is impossible,” exclaimed my friend. “I have known Professor Sorokin for years, and I know he is a professor of Sociology in the University. ‘ “All professors nowadays are bandits,” replied one of the Chekhists. Next morning my students read the announcement: “On account of sudden illness, the lectures of Professor Sorokin are interrupted. Notice will be given of their resumption.” Such announcements were so frequent that the students quite understood. For two weeks I peacefully reposed in the apartment of a friend pursuing my studies. As soon as I “recovered my health” I went back to my lectures, but these sudden illnesses became more and more frequent between 1920 and 1922. After a public speech or the publication of an article, it became my habit never to spend the night in my own home. Always on going to bed I asked myself, “Will they come for me tonight?” I became accustomed to this, as man accustoms himself to anything. {p. 243} CHAPTER XX RED “SCHOLARSHIP” “THE remuneration of the foreign press,” said a prominent member of the Soviet Government in 1920, “requires a considerable sum of our money.” This was evident from the number of foreign correspondents, foreign writers and other celebrities who visited Russia at this time, and the character of the information they spread abroad. The English Labor Delegation, H. G. Wells and Bertrand Russell, like other foreigners, saw principally what the Communists wanted to show them; they came in touch with few non-Communists, nor would they have been able to speak with many such had they so desired. They simply swallowed what ever bait the Soviet leaders offered them and went home impressed with the dictatorship of the proletariat, “endless Communist enthusiasm,” and the devotion of the people to the Soviet Government. I did not meet Bertrand Russell, but friends of mine did meet him and made what efforts they could to enlighten him as to the true condition of affairs. I was present at the meeting in the Palace of Labor, from which most real laborers were excluded, and I saw something of H. G. Wells who, from his arrival, was placed under the constant guardianship of Gorky. Wells visited the Academy of Science, but he could not talk with J. Pavlov or other dis- {p. 244} tinguished academicians. Gorky did not take him through the University, but showed him only its one decently equipped building, the physical laboratory. A dinner was given Wells in the House of Arts, with clean table cloths, clean dishes, and better food than any of the intellectuals had seen in years. There was even meat on that table. But to give it a proletarian appearance, the spoons were of wood. To create a truly liberal atmosphere, a number of University professors and literary men were invited, although most of the guests were Communists, and two Chekhists were on hand to watch the counter- revolutionaries. Indignant at the betrayal of truth by these men, I decided to make a speech, although I could not then use the English language. Addressing Wells, but really speaking to the Communists, I explained the real situation and the appalling campaign of murder which was being carried on in the name of liberty. I spoke moderately, for one does with the hangman in the room, but I must have spoken to the point, for Gorky suddenly interrupted, saying that such speeches were inadmissable. “Then why are we here?” I asked. “Are we invited only to assist in deceiving this great English writer?” At this several celebrated Russian writers, to show their indignation, rose and left the room, crying: “We refuse to be classed with liars.” Amphitheatroff, an eminent novelist, remained, saying to me: “I am going to try to finish your speech.” He did manage to speak briefly, but Gorky made him take his seat, declaring that what he was saying was “improper.” Gorky’s own {p. 245} speech was a sweeping defense of the Communist Government, and made him very popular with them. But it cost him the respeet of the intellectuals, many of whom after that evening would never take his hand. As for me, even before the dinner to Wells was over, I left the hall and once more, for my “health’s sake,” disappeared. {Wells was a leading supporter of the early Soviet regime. Wells and the Webbs supported Trotsky (against Stalin) at the time of his Expulsion from the USSR: wells-lenin-league.html} In 1920, when all these famous foreigners were reporting so enthusiastically on the new democracy, the mortality of scientists and scholars increased so frightfully that the Soviet Government began to fear that in a few years all Russian scientists would be dead. A special “scientific ration” was therefore established, giving each family of scientists a monthly allowance as follows: forty pounds of bad bread, two or three pounds of sugar, five pounds of salted fish or meat, five pounds of groats, one pound of salt, two to four pounds of butter, half a pound of “coffee,” a poor substitute for the real thing, half a pound of tobacco, and five boxes of matches. We were also permitted to organize a House of Scholars, where we might hold meetings and conferences. For these concessions we were grateful neither to the Government, which had done so much to increase the sufferings and death of the University people, nor to Gorky, who all along had played the role of a cunning broker, displaying a generosity which cost him nothing. We were grateful to the foreign scholars and scientists who sent us additions to our poor fare. Every half pound of sugar or bit of soap we thus received was a treasure; and once when we received in one parcel, from {p. 246} some Czecho-Slovak professors, ten pounds of sugar, we felt like millionaires. The increased ration of course gave us great joy, and once or twice a week when we visited the House of Scholars to receive it, we gladly stood hours in the queues. “Beggars of all the World” we called ourselves, watching world-famous scholars like Pavlov and Markoff waiting in line with rucksacks or baskets; Karpinsky, president of the Academy of Science, falling asleep from happiness when he received his first basket; others, almost as well known, asking each other like paupers: “What are they giving this week?” The House of Scholars became a pleasant retreat also when foreign journals and magazines began to be sent us, H. G. Wells being among the donors. Unfortunately, no new works on social science or economics, psychology or history, philosophy and law, were included in these. We had The Outlook for 1919, some copies of The Edinburgh Review for 1917-18, two old copies of The Economic Review and one of The Historical Review, nothing more. In 1922 I received a few sociological works from Czecho-Slovak scholars and from Prof. E. C. Hayes, and these were most eagerly read by all of us. As our economic situation became ameliorated our status in other respects became lowered. At the beginning of 1921 a decree was published, signed by the commissary Rotstein, that “Liberty of thought and scientific research is a bourgeois prejudice; that all professors, teachers, and writers should teach and write in full accordance with {p. 247} Marxian and Communistic theories; and that those who would not do so would be dismissed.” To this we replied with a declaration saying that liberty of thought was a condition without which no science could exist or develop; that science recognized no dictatorship except the dictatorship of truth, and that no real scientist or professor would or should obey a decree so absolutely dogmatic and anti- scientific. Some University professors were instantly dismissed, while others, forbidden to teach, were removed to the Research Institute, “where they would not be harmful to students.” The autonomy of the University was utterly destroyed, the elected deans being replaced by Communists, the dismissed professors by Red professors, and a special commissary – a freshman, Tsviback – was set over the Rector and academician Shimkevich. A sailor of the Baltic Fleet, one Serebryakoff, was made dean of the Faculty of Law and Social Sciences. It is enough to say of the Red professors that at one of the faculty meetings the students appeared with the following petition: “As many new professors have been appointed whose scientific works and University activities are unknown to us, we beg the faculty to require the new deans and new professors to publish a list of their scientific works and a short curriculum vitae to show their University career.” The Red deans and professors got out of this delicate situation by arresting some of the students’ representatives, and declaring that they held all bourgeois sciences in contempt. {p. 248} The students prepared a new petition in which they declared the lectures of the new professors revealed ignorance of their subjects inadmissable even in freshmen. They gave us stenographic reports of these lectures to prove their charges, and they begged us to organize special courses in which they could be trained. Of course, we could neither dismiss the new professors nor organize special courses, and the Rector told the students to take their complaints to the Government Ñ that is, if they were anxious to be arrested. The new commissary of the University, the Jew Tsviback, took away from the Rector, Shimkevich, the most prominent zoologist in Russia, all his seals and declared that he was now the University head. For the contemptuous manner in which he treated professors and students alike, this man was caught one night by students and severely beaten. But that did not drive him from office. In 1921-22 the Rector was dismissed and most of the professors dismissed, banished, or executed. This policy of the Government was a clear trial of the moral and social spirit of Russian scholars, and I can testify that most of them withstood every trial and temptation to which they were subjected. A very few of those in the lower ranks of the scientists, Svyatlovsky, Gredeskul, Engel, and Derjavin, for example, preferred the benefits of the Government to sacrifices for truth. One of the greatest, J. P. Pavlov, showed to what heights moral and scientific ideals soared in Russia in those terrible days. For no other rea- {p. 249} son than foreign propaganda, the Soviet Government in 1921 issued a decree giving Pavlov special consideration, providing for publication of all his works, and giving him a committee consisting of Gorky, Lunacharsky, and Kristy, to care for him and for his laboratory. The answer of Pavlov to this decree was this declaration: “I am not a broker, and I do not sell my knowledge for your rations. The dogs in my laboratory may eat better food if you give it to them, but I will not accept any privileges or benefits from hands that are destroying Russian science and culture.” Another distinguished intellectual, the writer M., refused even to accept the “scientific ration,” and though he was in an advanced stage of tuberculosis, he declined to go to a Soviet sanitarium. “I prefer to die rather than accept anything from the murderers of my country,” he said. Such acts of heroism, such devotion to ideals, in the face of all temptations, have been every day occurrences in Russia during the Soviet rule. Between these moral heroes and those men who have shown themselves cowards, there have been intermediate types, among them three or four scientists who, while hating Communism, adopted a policy of “captatio benevolentiae,” flattery and servility to the ruling powers. The great majority of intellectuals have simply endured and, when endurance failed, died. {p. 261} CHAPTER XXII “CAN YOU, comrades, point to any other country in the world where the Government gives to the working people food, clothing, lodging, and everything free from any charge as we are doing in our Communistic Russia?!” So spoke Grishka (Gregory) the Third, otherwise Zinovieff, at a meeting of workmen early in 1921. “I can,” cried a voice from the audience. “Then pray do.” “In the old Czarist galleys food and clothes, lodging and everything were free, just as in our Communistic society. Only they were better,” shouted the man. “Good! Perfectly true,” laughed the audience. Grishka tried to speak again, but he was interrupted. “Sit down! We have ‘heard enough, you fat devil!” And as the workers’ patience, long suppressed, broke all restraints, Chekhists with revolvers surrounded Zinovieff. The shouts continued, personal insults were hurled, and Grishka the Third disappeared. Scenes like this are not reported in the censored news which leaves Russia, but they have been common for at least three years. I was in Novgorod- {p. 262} skaia Province when two Communist agents, requ sitloning corn, butter, milk, and meat, tried, like Zinovieff, to represent the Soviet Government as a purely beneficent institution. An old peasant was the voice of the despoiled muzhiks. “Listen, you comrades, to what I tell you,” he declared. “The land is ours, it is true, but all the harvest is theirs. The forests are ours, the cattle are ours, but the trees are theirs and all the milk, butter, and meat are theirs. That is what the Government has done for us. Let them take the land back and eat it themselves.” Turning to the Communist agents, he continued: “Before we began to lend to your proletariat we had plenty of plows and nails. For three years we have been lending you all we raised. You have taken everything without payment, and now there are no plows and no nails. I think it is time for us to stop lending.” Other voices rose, some threatening, some conciliatory, but all of the same tenor. “Stop this counter-revolutionary talk,” commanded one of the Communists angrily. “Tomorrow morning you must pay the prod-razverstka (food tax), that is all. Every man who does not pay will be arrested.” “So!” exclaimed a stout peasant,” ‘the comrade peasants’ suddenly become in your sight counter-revolutionists. You are worse even than a Czarist tax collector. Then listen, there is God,” pointing to an ikon, “and there is the door. Get out.” “This is open rebellion,” cried the Communist. But in the ensuing scrimmage the two tax collectors {p. 263} found themselves no match for the crowd of peasants, who seized their revolvers. “Go in peace,” said the head peasant, as they threw the Communists out of the door, “but if any of us are arrested you will lose your heads.” By 1921 the destructive consequences of the Communist program became clear to even the dullest peasants. Their fields lay untilled and weed-grown. The peasants had no seeds to sow and they had no incentive to industry. In the towns everything was slowing down to a death sleep. Nationalized factories, having no fuel, stopped operating. Railways were broken down. Buildings were falling in ruins. Schools had almost ceased to function. The deadly noose of Communism was slowly choking the people to death. But Russia did not want to die, and in one sudden, desperate uprising the whole system for a time was smashed. But the Communists were left alive. In some ways that is unfortunate for them, for if they had all been killed by their enemies they would have lived in history as martyrs who tried to establish a new order but perished before their experiment had time to prove itself. Instead a different end is destined for them, an end of slow disintegratlon. Their destiny is to destroy their own ideal with their own hands, to exhibit it to the world in all its rottenness and horror; to plunge themselves deeper and deeper into the mire of corruption, cupidity, crimes, and bestiality; to erect higher and higher the mountain of the slain. And what end could be more terrible? When that destined end comes, the cross which {p. 264} Russia bears will be taken from her shouders, in spite of those moral bankrupts abroad who ignorantly or otherwise support the hands of the stranglers. Let these foreign theorists go on as they have been doing. They cannot help what will finally come, and what was foreshadowed by the terrible events of 1921 in Petrograd. By the middle of February in that year the factories had practically ceased production, railway traffic was paralyzed and could no longer transport food supplies to starving Petrograd. Stormy meetings were held in the idle factories and at one of these Zinovieff, spokesman for the Government, was badly beaten. Rumor told us that neighboring towns and cities were in rebellion and that peasant riots were increasing. Even in the Red army defection was spreading. On my way to the University on February 24 I witnessed a demonstration of workers from the Laferm factory on Vasilievsky Island which was strikingly akin to the scenes of the March Revolution of 1917. The same cry for bread, the same demand for liberty of speech and of the press, only this time the banners read “Down with the Soviet.” Children running around merrily sang popular songs satirizing the Government. A popular parody of “The International” ran thus: “I am sitting on a barrel Barrel turns about … The Chekha makes us quarrel. Let us send it to the devil. …” {p. 265} On the Nicolaevsky Bridge the demonstration met Communist troops, which opened fire and dispersed the workmen. The next days the riots were renewed. The crowds were larger and more defiant, and it was plain that the people were trying to get together. Many were arrested or killed. But the movement grew, and as Russians in the Red army refused to act, the Government brought up the ever- faithful forces, principally Lettish, Bashkirian, and International troops, and restrained the mobs. On February 26 a great demonstration oecurred in the center of the town, on the Nevsky Prospekt, and this time so many people were killed that it seemed that the Government had completely suppressed the uprising. The next day, February 27, we heard that the Kronstadt sailors, formerly ardent supporters of Communism, had revolted. This turned out to be true, and had that revolt succeeded, had we had even one free newspaper to support their revolt, it would have been the end of the Soviet Govermnent. Plainly we heard the cannonade from Kronstadt, and plainly we saw the panic of the Government. Within twenty-four hours a proclamation appeared announcing the New Economic Policy (NEP). According to the proclamation, requisitions from peasants were to be replaced by definite taxes; trade and commerce were to be re-established; many factories would be denationalized; people would be allowed to buy and sell food; special conferences of non-Communist workers would be organized to improve {p. 266} living standards. In this way Communism was liquidated and “NEP” was established. The effect on the half-starved population was to weaken their spirit of rebellion. The bribe of meat and butter, potatoes and bread, even more than the presence of the Chekhist troops, caused the people to cease their attacks on the Government. Thus the resistance to the Kronstadt rebellion was strengthened, the Soviet Government promising the army Kronstadt and its entire population if it would suppress the sailors’ revolt. For three weeks we listened to the constant sound of guns, our hearts melting with joy in the hope that the sailors would win that life and death duel. At that time both my wife and I were seized with pneumonia. She went to the hospital first, and next morning, although I was suffering, I attended a private meeting of six professors, two lawyers and two priests, with whom I discussed plans of action in case the Government fell; plans of organization of a new government, reorganization of the courts, the police force, and so on. There was no conspiracy, but simply practical discussion. I mention this because later, for just such discussions, many people were executed. The next day I was so ill that my physician ordered me to the hospital in Czarskoe Selo, where my wife fought with pneumonia. In normal times that hospital would have been counted a dirty place, but at least we had hot water, clean linen, food enough, and very few insects. My temperature not being very high, I lay in my bed quite happy. In {p. 267} the same room lay five or six workmen, two Soviet clerks and a University professor. Boom! Boom! echoed the sound of canon from Kronstadt, and we whispered to ourselves: “Brave boys. God help them.” In the darkness of the night I was awakened by what I first thought were the delirious ravings of one of the patients. But it was only one of the workmen on his knees, crossing himself, and muttering: “God help them. Great God help them. Deliver us from these sufferings.” Many hearts throbbed with prayers like that during those days and nights. A week passed. The cannonade still went on. Boom! Boom! My wife and I progressed through the crisis of pneumonia and began to mend, still to the sound of guns. But on March 18 the firing died down and a dead silence fell over Petrograd. Joyful excitement left the hearts of the people and fear took its place. The duel of Kronstadt was over. The Communists had conquered. Woe to the vanquished! For three days the town was at the absolute mercy of the Red troops. For three days the Lettish, Bashkirian, Hungarian, Tartars, Russian, Jewish, and International dregs, free from any restraint, mad with blood lust and alcohol, killed and violated. Men, women, children, young and old, strong and weak, all alike suffered untold tortures before death released them. In the days of their Communist madness those Kronstadt sailors had committed many crimes. They too had murdered and violated. But for what they had done they now expiated most horribly. {p. 268} The Government, which had been raised to power principally through their support, had no mercy upon them. When the bloody feast in Kronstadt was finished, thousands of the “pride and glory” of the new regime were in prison or dead. About ten thousand were shot and almost as many were sent to places where they could not long survive. This was done in spite of guarantees of the Government that those who surrendered would be given immunity. At the end of March, passing along Millionnaiai Street, I saw a group of workmen walking with bags of potatoes on their backs. Near the Hermitage we met a large group of sailor-prisoners being taken from the Chekha to Predvarilka prison. When they saw the workmen they began to revile them. “Traitors! You sold our lives for the Communists’ potatoes. Tomorrow you will have our flesh to eat with your potatoes. Eat, and choke yourselves!” The workers stopped, looking after the prisoners. Soon they passed with their guards and disappeared around the corner. The workers started slowly to walk on, but one man ran to the Neva and threw his bag of potatoes into the water. “I can’t eat them now,” he said bitterly. “Those boys are right. We betrayed them, and their blood is on our hands.” Three days after that the people of Czarskoe Selo living near the Kazanskoe cemetery had a sleepless night. Endless discharges of rifles were heard and seemed to strike them in the very heart. Five hundred sailors were shot that night near the cemetery. {p. 269} The regular executioners could not do it all, so the Union of Young Communists was mobilized to help them. This was represented as a part of their party obligation. But the Young Communists had not had much rifle practice, and possibly, too, their hands were shaking. Next morning people passing the cemetery heard groans coming from hastily filled-in graves. From our window we saw motor trucks of jackets and trousers, caps and shoes of the executed sailors. From other suburbs of Petrograd we heard of similar sights and sounds. “NEP” was dearly bought by these men of Kronstadt and by thousands of peasant heroes now lying in eternal peace. If the politicians ever forget that, Russia will remind them in the future. {p. 280} Lazarevsky burned in my brain. Now I knew why I had been so disturbed. To keep those letters for many days and send them to a wife after her husband had been shot! What a hellish deed!” “Hush! Don’t express your opinions so loudly,” said an acquaintance who passed at the moment. I had not known that I was speaking aloud. My first thought was to go back to Mrs. Lazarevsky, but I literally could not do it. Let someone else tell her of her “happiness.” Shot for adversely describing the state of the Soviet oil industry! The oil industry was indeed in a deplorable state, but the report of Tikhvinsky was written for the Soviet by order of Lenin himself. Shot for giving information about the museums! Shot for writing a project for a new electoral law! I remembered our private discussions during the Kronstadt riots, about the reorganization of the Government, the courts, and the police, should the Soviet Government fall. Lazarevsky said then that he would try to outline a new electoral law. This outline, falling in the hands of the Bolsheviki, had condemned him. Shot for his monarchist opinions! Not the fact that Goumileff was one of the greatest poets in Russia, not his bravery in the war, which had been rewarded by the order of St. George, not the discretion of his daily conduct were enough to save him. He had monarchist convictions. In this “plot” were involved people who had never even known each other, and all of them had been denied even an open trial. If in a “bourgeois” country such a mockery of justice had {p. 281} been accorded Communists or anarchists, what a roar would have been heard all over the world against the merciless cruelty of “capitalism.” But this was not the full extent of Communist cruelty. When Mrs. Lazarevsky and relatives of the other victims of the bloodthirsty god requested the Chekha to give them the bodies of their beloved for burial, the Chekha insolently answered: “What bodies7 Those persons have been sent to Archangel prison.” Most of the relatives knew this was intended as an added torture, but two, not really believing, and hoping that their people were still alive, became insane. Visiting old Professor Tagantzeff, I found the aged man utterly crushed with grief. “It is time for me to die,” he said weeping. “All is over for me. But my grandchildren – they have sent them to an asylum for young criminals. Why could they not permit those innocents to be brought up by our friends? I thought once that they were human, but now I know that they are worse than devils.” In 1922, soon after my own banishment, poor old Tagantzeff died. “This proletarian justice once more shows our enemies our power,” Grrishka the Third declared in a speech. “Let them remember this lesson.” We remember. If ever we are given opportunity to do justice to him and his companions, may God help us not to be too soft-hearted. {end quotes} (4) Dmitri Volkogonov, Trotsky: the Eternal Revolutionary, tr. & ed. Harold Shukman, HarperCollinsPublishers, London 1996. {p. 130} The Red Army’s crushing of the Kronstadt revolt, which occurred during the Tenth Party Congress of March 1921 when the once-loyal garrison rebelled against Bolshevik policies, gave a perfect illustration of Trotsky’s capability in this sphere. When he was told about the uprising, he at once dictated an address: {quote} To the population of Kronstadt and the rebellious forts. I order all those who have raised their hand against the socialist Fatherland to lay down their arms immediately. Recalcitrants must be disarmed and handed over to the Soviet authorities. Commissars and other representatives of the regime who have been arrested [by the insurgents] must be released at once. Only those who surrender unconditionally can count on the mercy of the Soviet Republic. I am simultaneously issuing instructions to prepare to crush the insurgency and the insurgents with an iron hand. {end quote} The address was signed by Trotsky, as People’s Commissar, S.S. Kamenev, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, commander of 7th Army Tukhachevsky, and chief-of-staff Lebedev. Years later, when his role in Kronstadt was mentioned in the West Trotsky tried to justify his actions in his Bulletin of tke Opposition and in letters to his supporters. These letters, of which there were several hundred, quickly found their way into the hands of the NKVD. {p. 131} The use of terror and violence by both sides in the civil war is well illustrated by memoirs in the collection Arkhiv russkoi revolyutsii, published in Berlin in the 1920s. Former White officer V.Yu. Arbatov recalled: ‘The head of the Cheka in Yekaterinoslav, Valyavka, used to release a dozen or so prisoners into a small, high-walled yard at night. Valyavka himself with two or three comrades would go into the middle of the yard and open fire on these utterly defenceless people. Their cries could be heard throughout the town on those quiet May nights … The Whites were no better; they would loot any town they entered for a whole day.’ {p. 213} In practice, this meant Trotsky’s issuing orders, such as one he sent to the military commander at Vologda on 4 August 1918: ‘Root out the counter-revolutionaries without mercy, lock up suspicious characters in concentration camps – this is a necessary condition of success … Shirkers will be shot, regardless of past service. …’ {p. 392} In 1938, at the height of the Moscow trials, many of Trotsky’s {p. 393} intellectual friends began asking themselves at what point and from what source the Stalinist terror and the violent, anti-democratic character of the Soviet regime had originated. For Max Eastman, Victor Serge and Boris Souvarine the rot had begun with the crushing of the Kronstadt revolt in March 1921.* {see footnote} They now publicly raised the question of Trotsky’s personal responsibility. Serge declared unequivocally that this use of force against those who thought differently from the Bolsheviks had signalled a shift to repressive policies in the Soviet republic while Lenin and Trotsky were still in power. Had Trotsky not led the punitive expedition himself? In what way was he superior to Stalin? Trotsky had never described the Kronstadt revolt: no doubt like others involved in crushing it he found it unpleasant to recall. But the criticism from his recent supporters was serious and required answering. In an article entitled ‘Once More on the Suppression of Kronstadt’, Trotsky replied to his critics in characteristic style: {quote} In his book on Stalin, that faded Marxist-turned-sycophant Souvarine claims that in my autobiography I purposely said nothing about the Kronstadt revolt: there are, he says ironically, feats one is not proud of … The fact is I took not the slightest part in the suppression of the Kronstadt revolt itself, nor in the repressions that ensued … As far as I recall, it was Dzerzhinsky who dealt with the repressions, and he (rightly) never permitted any interference in his work … However, I am willing to admit that a civil war is not a school of humanitarianism … Let those who wish to reject the revolution as a whole on these grounds (in their little articles) do so. I do not reject it. In this sense, I fully and entirely bear responsibility for the suppression of the Kronstadt revolt. {endquote} Trotsky was not entirely honest in dealing with this issue. With Lenin’s knowledge, he had indeed been one of the organizers of the bloody suppression of the revolt. The criticism coming from his {footnote *} The soldiers and sailors of the island garrison had risen up against the Bolshevik government they had helped bring to power. The economic crisis of early 1921, combined with a sense of political betrayal, led to a rebellion which the Red Army, under Trorsky’s leadership, crushed with extreme violence. Trotsky had responded to the rebels’ attempts to negotiate with a demand for unconditional surrender, otherwise they would be ‘shot like partridges’. Fifty thousand Red Army troops made the final assault, killing hundreds in combat and later as prisoners. {end footnote} {p. 394} former friends had found a raw nerve and he felt constrained to respond in a further long polemical article, entitled ‘The Fuss About Kronstadt’, written at the end of 1937 and beginning of 1938. It quickly found its way via Zborowski to Stalin’s desk. This was one occasion when the General Secretary could not have found fault with his former rival, for the line Trotsky took on Kronstadt coincided precisely with the official Soviet line at the time. Indeed, Stalin could have put his own signature to it. Among other things, Trotsky wrote: ‘The Kronstadt revolt was nothing more than the armed reaction of the petty bourgeoisie against the difficulties of the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat … The [rebels] wanted a revolution that would not lead to a dictatorship, and a dictatorship that did not use coercion.’ {end quotes} Trotskyists and other “Marxist Anti-Communists” currently shape intellectual life in the West’s universities; yet they deny the atrocities of the Bolsheviks, or that they were Jewish-led. The Jewish identities of Lenin and Trotsky: lenin-trotsky.html. The USSR Constitution of 1924: ussr1924.html. The early Soviet Union – after Lenin and Trotsky, but before Stalin’s ascendancy: soviet-union-early.html. To this day, leaders of the British Labour Party claim that the Zinoviev Letter was a forgery. But given the extent of Soviet duplicity, its authenticity must be reconsidered: zinoviev.html. To purchase Dmitri Volkogonov’s books second-hand via Abebooks: http://dogbert.abebooks.com/abe/BookSearch?an=dmitri+volkogonov. Open Society, Open Conspiracy: opensoc.html. Write to me at contact.html. HOME http://mailstar.net/kronstadt.html The USSR Constitution of 1924 Comments by Peter Myers; my comments are shown {thus}. Date July 2001; update January 11, 2009 Write to me at contact.html. You are at http://mailstar.net/ussr1924.html. This constitution is important, because it was endorsed just ten days after Lenin died on 21 January 1924. At the time, a triumvirate (Kamenev, Zinoviev, Stalin) was ruling the USSR, of whom Stalin was the only non-Jew. He had not yet gained full power, and Trotsky was still a powerful figure, although his challenge was rebuffed by the triumvirate. This Constitution, then, is Lenin’s, and Trotsky’s too. The 1918 Constitution was for Russia only; coming soon after the Revolution, it could not have been as thought-out as the 1924 one. By the time of the 1924 Constitution, there were four Soviet Socialist Republics. This Constitution marked their formal federation into one “Union”. Those advocating World Federalism have something similar in mind: a “Federation” is just a “Union”. The later, 1936 Constitution was Stalinist, and centralised power much further in Moscow; all subsequent Constitutions were also Stalinist, except that Gorbachev was in the process of negotiating a new non-Stalinist Constitution, more Federal i.e. less Unitary, when the coup took place. The USSR Constitution had two parts: a Declaration and a Union Treaty (a treaty between the federating republics). Gorbachev was in the process of re-negotiating the Union Treaty, when he was deposed. Apparently he was even trying to change the name of the USSR, to “The Union of Sovereign States”, a name reminiscent of the present British Commonwealth, where the distribution of power is more hidden than it was in the USSR. For investigators of World Government, the Declaration part of the 1924 USSR Constitution is especially interesting, because it contains this committment to gradually expand the Federation by incrementally admitting more and more republics, after they had been liberated, until the whole world had joined the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: “… the very structure of Soviet power, intemational by nature of class, pushes the masses of workers of the Soviet Republics to unite in one socialist family. … the new federal state … will serve as a bulwark against the capitalist world and mark a new decisive step towards the union of workers of all countries in one world-wide Socialist Soviet Republic.” From: Rex A. Wade, Documents of Soviet History, vol 3 Lenin’s Heirs 1923-1925, Academic International Press, Gulf Breeze, Fl., 1995. ==start== THE CONSTITUTION OF THE U.S.S.R. 31 January 1924 CONSTITUTION OF THE UNION OF SOCIALIST SOVIET REPUBLICS PART I DECLARATION Since the foundation of the Soviet Republics, the states of the world have been divided into two camps: the camp of capitalism and the camp of socialism. There, in the camp of capitalism: national hate and inequality, colonial slavery and chauvinism, national oppression and massacres, brutalities and imperialistic wars. Here, in the camp of socialism: reciprocal confidence and peace, national liberty and equality, the pacific co-existence and fratemal collaboration of peoples. The attempts made by the capitalistic world during the past ten years to decide the question of nationalities by bringing together the principle of the free development of peoples wilh a system of exploitation of man by man have been fruitless. In addition, the number of national conflicts becomes more and more confusing, even menacing the capitalist regime. The bourgeoisie has proven itself incapable of realizing a harmonious collaboration of the peoples. It is only in the camp of the Soviets, only under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat that has grouped around itself the majority of the people, that it has been possible to eliminate the oppression of nationalities, to create an atmosphere of mutual confidence and to establish the basis of a fraternal collaboration of peoples. It is only thanks to these circumstances that the Soviet Republics have succeeded in repulsing the imperialist attacks both intemally and externally. It is only thanks to them that the Soviet Republics have succeeded in satisfactorily ending a civil war, in assuring their existence and in dedicating themselves to pacific economic reconstruction. But the years of the war have not passed without leaving their trace. The devastated fields, the closed factories, the forces of production destroyed and the economic resources exhausted, this heritage of the war renders insufficient the isolated economic erforts of the several Republics. National economic reestablishment is impossible as long as the Republics remain separated. On the other hand, the instability of the international situation and the danger of new attacks make inevitable the creation ol a united front of the Soviet Republics in the presence of capitalist surroundings. Finally, the very structure of Soviet power, intemational by nature of class, pushes the masses of workers of the Soviet Republics to unite in one socialist family. All these considerations insistently demand the union of the Soviet Republics into one federated state capable of guaranteeing external security, economic prosperity internally, and the free national development of peoples. The will of the peoples of the Soviet Republics recently assembled in Congress, where they decided unanimously to form the “Union of Socialist Soviet Republics,” is a sure guarantee that this Union is a free federation of peoples equal in rights, that the right to freely withdraw from the Union is assured to each Republic, that access to the Union is open to all Republics already existing as well as those that may be bom in the future, that the new federal state will be the worthy crowning of the principles laid down as early as October 1917 of the pacific co-existence and fraternal collaboration of peoples, that it will serve as a bulwark against the capitalist world and mark a new decisive step towards the union of workers of all countries in one world-wide Socialist Soviet Republic. PART II TREATY The Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic, the Socialist Soviet Republic of Ukraine, the Socialist Soviet Republic of White Russia, and the Socialist Soviet Republic of Transcaucasia (including the Socialist Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, the Socialist Soviet Republic of Georgia, and the Socialist Soviet Republic of Ammenia)Ñunite themselves in one federal stateÑ”The Union of Socialist Soviet Republics.” Chapter I Attributions of the Supreme Organs of Power of the Union ARTICLE 1. The Union of Socialist Soviet Republics through its supreme organs has the following powers: (a) To represent the Union in its international relations; to conclude all diplomatic relations; to conclude treaties, political and otherwise, with other States; (b) to modily the exterior frontiers of the Union, as well as to regulate questions concerning the modification of frontiers between the member Republics; (c) to conclude treaties concerning the reception of new Republics inlo the Union; (d) to declare war and to conclude peace; (e) to conclude internal and external loans of the Union and to authorize internal and external loans of the member Republics; (f) to ratify international treaties; (g) to direct commerce with foreign countries and to determine the system of intemal commerce; (h) to establish the basic principles and the general plan of the national economy of the Union; to define the domains of industry and industrial enterprises that are of federal interest; to conclude treaties of concession both federal and in the name of the member Republics; (i) to direct transportation and the postal and telegraph services; (j) to organize and direct the armed forces of the Union; (k) to approve the budget of the federal state which includes the budgets of the memher Republics; to establish duties and federal revenues, making additions and reductions in order to balance the member Republics’ budgets; to authorize duties and supplementary taxes to meet the member Republics’ budgets; (l) to establish a uniform system of money and credit; (m) to establish general principles of exploitation and use of the earth, as well as those of the sub-soil, the forests, and the waters of the territories of the Union; (n) to establish federal legislation on the emigration from the territory of one of the Republics to the territory of another and to set up a fund for such emigration; (o) to establish principles of the judicial organization and procedure, as well as civil and eriminal legislation for the Union; (p) to establish the fundamental laws regarding work; (q) to establish the general principles regarding public instruction; (r) to establish the general measures regarding public hygiene; (s) to establish a standard system of weights and measures; (t) to organize federal statisties; (u) to fix the fundamental legislation regarding federal nationality, with reference to the rights of foreigners; (v) to exereise the right of amnesty in all territories of the Union; to abrogate the acts of the Congresses of the Soviets and the Central Executive Committees of the member Republics contrary to the present Constitution; (x) to arbitrate litigious questions between the member Republies. ARTICLE 2. The approval and modification of the fundamental principles of the present Constitution belong exclusively to the Congress of Soviets of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. CHAPTER II Sovereign Rights of the Member Republics ARTICLE 3. The sovereignty of the member Republics is limited only in the matters indicated in the present Constitution, as coming within the competence of the Union. Outside of those limits, each member Republic exerts its public powers independently; the U.S.S.R. protects the rights of the member Republics. ARTICLE 4. Each one of the member Republics retains the right to freely wilhdraw from the Union. ARTICLE 5. The member Republics will make changes in their Constitutions lo conlorm with the present Constitution. ARTICLE 6. The territory of the member Republics cannot be modified without their consent; also, any limitation or modification or suppression of Article 4 must have the approval of all the member Republics of the Union. ARTICLE 7. Just one federal nationality is established for the citizens of the member Republics. CHAPTER III Congress of Soviets of the Union ARTICLE 8. The supreme organ of power of the U.S.S.R. is the Congress of Soviets, and, in the recesses of the Congress of SovietsÑthe Central Executive Committee of the U.S.S.R. which is composed of the Federal Soviet and the Soviet of Nationalities. ARTICLE 9. The Congress of Soviets of the U.S.S.R. is composcd ol representatives of the city and town Soviets on the basis of one deputy per 25,000 electors, and of representatives of the provincial Congresses of Soviets on thc basis of one deputy per 125,000 inhabitants. ARTICLE 10. The delegates to the Congress of Soviets of the U.S.S.R. are elected in the provincial Congresses of Soviets. In the Republics where there does not exist provincial division, the delegates are elected directly to the Congress of Soviets of the respective Republic. ARTICLE 11. Regular sessions of the Congress of Soviets of the U.S.S.R. are convoked by the Central Executive Committee of the Union once yearly; extraordinary sessions may be convoked on decision of the C.E.C. (Central Executive Committee), or on the demand of the Federal Soviet, or of the Soviet of Nationalities, or on the demand of two member Republics. ARTICLE 12. In cases where extraordinary circumstances interfere with the meeting of the Congress of Soviets of the U.S.S.R. on the date set, the C.E.C. of the Union has the power to adjoum the meeting of Congress. CHAPTER IV The Central Executive Committee of the Union ARTIC1.E 13. The Central Executive Committee of the U.S.S.R. is composed of the Federal Soviet and the Soviet of Nationalities. ARTICLE 14. The Congress of Soviets of the U.S.S.R. elects the Federal Soviet from among the representatives ol the member Republics in proportion to the population of each one to make a grand total of 371 memhers. ARTICLE 15. The Soviet ol Nationalities is composed Or representatives ol the member Republics and associated autonomous Republics of the R.S.F.S.R. on the basis of five representatives for each member Republic, and one representative for each associated autonomous Republic. The composition of the Soviet of Nationalities in its entirety is approved by the Congress of the U.S.S.R. (The autonomous Republics of Adjaria, and Abkhasia and the autonomous region of Osetia, Nagornyi-Karabakh and Nakhichevanskaia each send a representative to the Soviet of Nationalities.) ARTICLE 16. The Federal Soviet and the Soviet of Nationalities examine all decrees, codes, and acts that are presented to them by the Presidium of the C.E.C. and by the Council of People’s Commissars of the U.S.S.R., by the different Commissariats of the People of the Union, by the C.E.C. of the member Republics, as well as those that owe their origin to the Federal Soviet and the Soviet of Nationalities. ARTICLE 17. The C.E.C. of the Union publishes the codes, decrees, acts, and ordinances; orders the work of legislation and administration of the U.S.S.R., and defines the sphere of activity of the Presidium of the C.E.C. and of the Council of Commissars of the People of the U.S.S.R. ARTICLE 18. All decrees and acts defining the general rules of the political and economic life of the U.S.S.R., or making radical modifications in the existing practices of public organs of the U.S.S.R. must obligatorily be submitted for examination and approval to the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. ARTICLE 19. All decrees, acts, and ordinances promulgated by the C.E.C. must be immediately put into force throughout all the territory of the U.S.S.R. ARTICLE 20. The C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. has the right to suspend or abrogate the decrees, acts, and orders of the Presidium of the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R., as well as those of the Congress of Soviets and of the C.E.C. of the member Republics, and all other organs of power throughout the territory of thc Union U.S.S.R. ARTICLE 21. The ordinary sessions of the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. are convoked by the Presidium of the C.E.C. three times yearly. The extraordinary sessions are convoked by the Presidium of the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. on the demand of the Presidium of the Federal Soviet or of the Presidium of the Soviet of Nationalilies, and also on demand of one of the C.E.Cs. of the member Republics. ARTICLE 22. The projects of law submitted for examination to the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. do not have the force of law until adopted by the Federal Soviet and by the Soviet of Nationalities; they are published in the name of the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. ARTICLE 23. In case of disagreement between the Federal Soviet and the Soviet of Nationalities, the question is transmitted to a compromise committee chosen by the two of them. ARTICLE 24. If an accord is not reached by the compromise committee, the question is transferred for examination to a joint meeting of the Federal Soviet and the Soviet of Nationalities; and, if neither the Federal Soviet nor the Soviet of Nationalities obtain a majority, then the question may be submitted, on the demand of one of these organs, to the decision of an ordinary or extraordinary Congress of the U.S.S.R. ARTICLE 25. The Federal Soviet and the Soviet of Nationalities elect for the preparation of their sessions and the direction of their workÑtheir Presidiums, composed of seven members each. ARTICLE 26. Between sessions of the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R., the supreme organ of power is the Presidium of the U.S.S.R., constituted by the C.E.C. to the extent of 21 members, including the Presidium of the Federal Soviet and the Presidium of the Soviet ol Nationalities. To form the Presidium of the C.E.C. and the Council of People’s Commissars of the U.S.S.R., conforming to Articles 26 and 37 of the present Constitution, joint sessions of the Federal Soviet and of the Soviet ol Nationalilies are convoked. In the joint session ol the Federal Soviet and the Soviet of Nationalitiies, the vote is taken separately within each group. ARTICLE 27. The C.E.C. elects, in accordance with the number of member Republics, four Presidents of the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R from among the members of the Presidium of the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. ARTICLE 28. The C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. is responsible before the Congress of Soviets of the U.S.S.R. CHAPTER V The Presidium of the C.E.C. of the Union ARTICLE 29. Between sessions of the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R., the Presidium of the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R is the supreme organ of legislative, executive, and administrative power of the U.S.S.R. ARTICLE 30. The Presidium of the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. oversees the enforcement of the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. and the execution of all decisions of the Congress of Soviets and of the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. by all the public agents. ARTICLE 31. The Presidium of the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. has the right to suspend and abrogate the orders of the Council of People’s Commissars and of the different Councils of the People of the U.S.S.R. as well as those of the C.E.C. and C.P.C. (Councils of People’s Commissars) of the member Republics. ARTICLE 32. The Presidium of the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. has the right to suspend the acts of the Congresses of Soviets of the member Republics submitting afterwards these acts for the examination and approval of the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. ARTICLE 33. The Presidium of the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. promulgates the decrees, acts, and orders; examines and approves the projects of decrees and acts deposited by the C.P.C., by the different authorities of the U.S.S.R., by the C.E.C. of the member Republics, by their Presidiums and by other organs of power. ARTICLE 34. The decrees and decisions of the C.E.C., of its Presidium, and the C.P.C. of the U.S.S.R. are printed in the languages generally employed in the member Republics: Russian, Ukrainian, White Russian, Georgian, Armenian, Turko-Tartarian. ARTICLE 35. The Presidium of the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. decides questions regarding the relationships between the C.P.C. of the U.S.S.R. and the People’s Commissars of the U.S.S.R., for one part and the C.E.C. of the member Republics and their Presidiums, for the second part. ARTICLE 36. The Presidium of the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. is responsible before the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. CHAPTER VI Council of People’s Commissars of the Union ARTICLE 37. The Council of People’s Commissars (C.P.C.) of the U.S.S.R. is the executive and administrative organ of the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. and is constituted by the C.E.C. as follows: (a) The President of the Council of People’s Commissars of the U.S.S.R., (b) The Vice-Presidents, (c) The People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, (d) The People’s Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs, (e) The People’s Commissar for Foreign Commerce, (f) The People’s Commissar for Ways and Communication, (g) The People’s Commissar for Postal and Telegraph Service, (h) The People’s Commissar for the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspectorate, (i) The President of the Supreme Council of National Economy, (j) The People’s Commissar for Labor, (k) The People’s Commissar for Finances, (l) The People’s Commissar for Supplies. ARTICLE 38. The Council of People’s Commissars of the U.S.S.R., in the limits of the power granted to it by the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. and on the basis of rules regulating the C.P.C. of the U.S.S.R., publishes the decrees and decisions that must become effective throughout the territory of the U.S.S.R. ARTICLE 39. The C.P.C. of the U.S.S.R. examines the decrees and decisions given it by the various People’s Commissariats as well as those from the C.E.C. of the member Republics and by their Presidiums. ARTICLE 40. The C.P.C. of the U.S.S.R. is responsible for all its work before the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. and before its Presidium. ARTICLE 41. The orders and acts of the C.P.C. of the U.S.S.R. may be suspended and abrogated by the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. and by its Presidium. ARTICLE 42. The Central Executive Committees of the member Republics and their Presidiums may object to the decrees and orders of the C.P.C. of the U.S.S.R. to the Presidium of the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R., without suspending the execution of these orders. CHAPTER VII The Supreme Court of the Union ARTICLE 43. In order to maintain revolutionary legality within the territory of the U.S.S.R., a Supreme Court under the jurisdiction of the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. is established, competent: (a) To give the Supreme Courts of the member Republics the authentic interpretations on questions of federal legislation; (b) To examine, on the request of the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R., the decrees, decisions, and verdicts of the Supreme Courts of the member Republics, with the view of discovering any infraction of the federal laws, or harming the interests of other Republics, and if such be discovered to bring them before the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. (c) To render decisions on the request of the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. as to the constitutionality of laws passed by the member Republics; (d) To settle legal disputes between the member Republics; (e) To examine the accusations brought before it of high officials against whom charges have been made relative to their performance of duties. ARTICLE 44. The Supreme Court performs its functions in the following manner: (a) With a full attendance of the member judges of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R.; (b) Or, in a meeting of the Civil Judiciary College and the Criminal Judiciary College of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R.; (c) Or, in a meeting of the Military College. ARTICLE 45. The Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R., in full session, is composed of 11 members, including its President and Vice-President, the four Presidents of the Supreme Courts of the member Republics, and a representative of the Unified States Political Administration of the U.S.S.R.; the President and the Vice-President and the other five members are named by the Presidium of the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. ARTICLE 46. The Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R. and his assistant are named by the Presidium of the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. The Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R. is charged with the duties: (1) to give the decisions of all questions in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R., (2) to prosecute the cases brought before the Court, (3) and, in cases of lack of agreement among the judges of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R., to bring these questions of dispute before the Presidium of the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. ARTICLE 47. The right to submit the questions referred to in Article 43 to the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R. for examination belongs exclusively to the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R., to its Presidium, to the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R., to the Prosccutors of the Supreme Courts of the member Republics and to the Unified States Political Administration of the U.S.S.R. ARTICLE 48. The regular sessions of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R. constitute the special legal chambers to examine: (a) The civil and criminal affairs of exceptional importance that are of interest to two or more member Republics; (b) Personal charges against members of the C.E.C. and the C.P.C. of the U.S.S.R. A decision of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R. to proceed to examine a case may take place only after special authority has been granted for each case by the C.E.C. of the Union or its Presidium. CHAPTER VIII Commissars of the People of the Union ARTICLE 49. For the immediate direction of the several branches of public administration attributed to the C.P.C. of the U.S.S.R., ten People’s Commissars are created as mentioned in Article 37 of the present Constitution and who act according to the regulations of the People’s Commissars approved by the C.E.C. of the U.S.S.R. ARTICLE 50. The People’s Commissars of the U.S.S.R. are divided into the following groups: (a) People’s Commissars handling strictly federal matters of the U.S.S.R. that are extemal in character; (b) People’s Commissars handling matters that are purely domestic in character. ARTICLE 51. The first group of the Commissars handling matters external in character includes the following People’s Commissars: (a) For Foreign Attairs, (b) For Military and Naval Affairs, (c) For Foreign Commerce, (d) For Ways and Communication, (e) For Postal and Telegraph Service. ARTICLE 52. The second group handling matters that are strictly domestic in character includes the following People’s Commissars: (a) The Council of National Economy (b) For Supplies, (c) For Labor, (d) For Finances, (e) For the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspectorate. ARTICLE 53. The People’s Commissars handling matters of purely external character have, in the various member Republics their delegates directly subordinate to these Commissars. ARTICLE 54. The People’s Commissars handling matters of domestic concern have as executing organs in the various member Republics, People’s Commissars of these Republics of similar title. ARTICLE 55. The C.P.C. of the U.S.S.R., including the individual Commissars, are the heads of the various departments mentioned. ARTICLE 56. Under each People’s Commissar, and under his presidency, is formed a College, of which the members are named by the C.P.C. of the U.S.S.R. ARTICLE 57. The People’s Commissar has the right to personally take decisions on all questions that come within the jurisdiction of his department, o

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s