Identity Socialism

The current, modern socialism that is a hybrid between economic socialism and identity politics. The roots of this identity socialism can be traced to one man: Herbert Marcuse. Socialism in America today has turned black against white, female against male, homosexual and transsexual against heterosexual, and illegals against legal immigrants and American citizens. The typical socialist today is not a union guy who wants higher wages; it is a transsexual eco-feminist who marches in Antifa and Black Lives Matter rallies and throws cement blocks at her political opponents.

In this coronavirus crisis, we’ve gotten a nasty preview on a temporary basis of what socialism would feel like on a permanent basis: empty shelves, shortages and limits on basic commodities, and a wholesale assault on our civil liberties, including invasions of privacy through government surveillance, and restrictions on freedom of assembly and religious freedom.

We also see Democratic politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Bill De Blasio, Jay Inslee and Gavin Newsom seeking to use the crisis to push a whole slew of socialist proposals.

A review of this laundry list of proposals, however, makes it clear we are dealing with a new type of socialism. Here are a few examples: regular monthly payments to illegals, diversity commissions to review corporate governance, money to fund Green New Deal proposals, studies to determine the impact of coronavirus on racial minorities, taxpayer funding for abortion.

This is identity politics; what does it have to do with socialism?  The Democratic primary this year featured all the candidates highlighting their diversity credentials and competing for victimhood in the identity Olympics: Buttigieg scored a point for being gay and Cory Booker one for being black. But they were outscored by Kamala Harris who got two points for being black and a woman. Elizabeth Warren got one for being a woman although she attempted to go for two by falsely claiming to be native American. Ironically the two final contenders were both white men, and the prize in the end went to Biden, the oldest and one might almost say deadest white male in the race.

A recent meeting of Democratic Socialists of America featured people calling themselves ecosocialists, Afro-socialists, Islamosocialists, Chicano socialist, sanctuary socialists, #MeToo socialists, queer socialists and transgender socialists. Consider, too, the new vocabulary that leading Democrats now use. Here’s a tweet by Elizabeth Warren: “Black trans and cis women, gender-nonconforming and nonbinary people are the backbone of our democracy.”

The new socialism is identity socialism, a marriage between classic socialism and identity politics. This new type of socialism has transformed the Left and the Democratic Party. This is clearly no longer the party of Franklin Roosevelt. Indeed, FDR would not know what Warren was talking about. Who are these people and how could they be the “backbone” of our democracy? They are, however, the backbone of the socialist Left.

Typical of the new type of socialist is Stacey Abrams, who said her campaign for governor of Georgia “championed reforms to eliminate police shootings of African Americans, protect the LBGTQ community, expand Medicaid to save rural hospitals and reaffirm that undocumented immigrants deserve legal protections.” Only one of these four planks — the one about saving rural hospitals — would be even remotely recognizable to FDR as part of the progressive agenda.

Not just the Democratic Party or the Left, socialism itself has become redefined. For Marx, socialism was exclusively about class division. The world is divided into two camps: the capitalists and the working class. The former are the exploiters; the latter, the exploited. For Marx, other divisions based on race, gender, ethnicity and nationality were merely clever devices on the part of the capitalist class to divide and conquer the working class.

Yet socialism in America today emphasizes not one social division but several, not merely the division based on class but also the divisions based on race, gender, sexual orientation and even immigrant status. For the socialist Left now, it’s not merely the rich against the poor, but also white against black, male against female, straight against gay and transgender, and legal against illegal.

The new term is “intersectionality.” What this means is that one belonging to one victim group is impressive but belonging to multiple victim groups places you at the top of the new social totem pole. Conversely, it’s bad to be white, but it’s worse to be white and male, and worst of all is to be white, male and heterosexual. The new socialism is not merely about inclusion of previously victimized groups; it is also about demonizing people belonging to designated oppressor groups as racists, bigots and Nazis.

What’s the goal of identity socialism? Ultimately it’s about trying to get people to define themselves in terms of their race, gender and sex organs. These various forms of division are intended to create large, resentful victim groups. The Left hopes to bring together enough of these victim groups to form a popular majority. In this way, they can then rule unobstructed over the rest of the population.

This doesn’t merely involve confiscating people’s money but also forcing them to conform to the social norms of the Left on pain of being ostracized, shut down or even locked up. The conservative watchdog group Project Veritas even recorded Bernie staffers talking about putting Republicans and conservatives into gulags and reeducation camps. As one of them, Kyle Jurek, addressed them, “We’re going to have to teach you not to be a f*ck*ng Nazi.”

The problem with identity socialism is that we are more than the sum of these identities. We are humans, and we are also Americans. We are neither pure victims nor victimizers; on the contrary, the line between good and evil runs through every human heart. If we want to bring the country together, if we still believe in one America, we should reject the politics of division and resentment that defines identity socialism.

Marcuse’s Marxist Conundrum

To understand identity socialism, we must go back several decades and meet the man who figured out how to bring its various strands together, Herbert Marcuse. A German philosopher partly of Jewish descent, Marcuse studied under the philosopher Heidegger before escaping Germany prior to the Nazi ascent. After stints at Columbia, Harvard and Brandeis, Marcuse moved to California, where he joined the University of San Diego and became the guru of the New Left in the sixties.

Marcuse influenced a whole generation of young radicals, from Weather Underground co-founder Bill Ayers to Yippie activist Abbie Hoffman to Tom Hayden, president of the activist group Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Angela Davis, who later joined the Black Panthers and also ran for vice president on the Communist Party ticket, was a student of Marcuse and also one of his protéegeés. It was Marcuse, Davis said, who “taught me that it is possible to be an academic, an activist, a scholar and a revolutionary.”

Marcuse egged on the activists of the 1960s to seize buildings and overthrow the hierarchy of the university, as a kind of first step to fomenting socialist revolution in America. Interestingly, it was Ronald Reagan—then governor of California—who got Marcuse fired. Still, Marcuse retained his celebrity and influence over the radicals of the time. He did not, of course, create the forces of identity socialism but he saw, perhaps earlier than anyone else, how they could form the basis for a new and viable socialism in America. That’s the socialism we are dealing with now.

To understand the problem Marcuse confronted, we have to go back to Marx. Marx saw himself as the prophet, not the instigator, of the advent of socialism. We think of Marx as some sort of activist, seeking to organize a workers’ revolution, but Marx emphasized from the outset that the socialist revolution would come inevitably; nothing had to be done to cause it. The Marxist view is nicely summed up by one of Marx’s German followers, Karl Kautsky, who wrote, “Our task is not to organize the revolution but to organize ourselves for the revolution; it is not to make the revolution, but to take advantage of it.”

But what happens when the working class is too secure and contented to revolt? Marx didn’t anticipate this; in fact, the absence of a single worker revolt of the kind Marx predicted, anywhere in the world, is a full and decisive refutation of “scientific” Marxism. In the early 20twentieth century, Marxists across the world—from Lenin to Mussolini—were fully aware of this problem. Fascism or national socialism represented one way to respond to it; Leninism represented another.

I’ll focus on Lenin, because his was the approach that influenced Marcuse and the New Left in the 1960s. Basically Lenin argued that the working class was never going to revolt; they might join trade unions, but that was about it. In Lenin’s diagnosis, workers could develop “trade union consciousness” but not “revolutionary consciousness.” So then what? In his famous work What Is To Be Done? Lenin insisted that the socialist revolution would not be done by the working class; it would have to be done for them.

In other words, a professional class of activists and fighters would be required to serve as a revolutionary vanguard. Lenin assembled a varied group of landless farmers, professional soldiers, activist intellectuals and attorneys, and criminals to collaborate with him in overthrowing the czar and introducing Bolshevik socialism to Russia. Although Lenin presented his approach as continuous with Marxism, it represented, as socialists around the world recognized, a radical break with and revision of Marxism.

Around the same time, in the early 1920s, the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci made his own revision of socialist theory by introducing the concept of culture. “Hegemony” was Gramsci’s key concept. He insisted that the capitalists did not rule society solely on the basis of economic power. Rather, they ruled through “bourgeois values” that permeated the cultural, educational, and psychological realm of society. Economics, Gramsci insisted, is a subset of culture. Economics is shaped by culture no less than culture is shaped by the economic basis of society.

For Gramsci, socialist revolution under current conditions was impossible because the working class had internalized bourgeois values. The ordinary worker had no intention of toppling his employers; his aspiration was to become like them. Gramsci’s solution was for socialist activists to figure out a way to break this hegemony, and to establish a hegemony of their own. To do this they would have to take over the universities, the art world, and the culture more generally. In this way they could combat bourgeois culture “from within.”

Lenin and Gramsci provided Marcuse’s starting point. He agreed with both of them that the working class had become a conservative, counterrevolutionary force. But his greatest early influence was a third man, Heidegger. Marcuse read Heidegger’s magnum opus Being and Time and it inspired him so much he apprenticed himself to Heidegger, becoming first his student and then his faculty assistant at the University of Freiburg. Marcuse found in Heidegger a way to ground socialism in something more profound than better salaries and working conditions, in something that transcended Marx’s materialism itself.

The basic idea of Heidegger’s magnum opus Being and Time is that we are finite beings, “thrown,” as Heidegger puts it, into the world, with no knowledge of where we came from, what we are here for, or where we are going. We live in a present, yet we are constantly aware of multiple future possibilities, in which we must choose even though we can only know in retrospect whether we chose wisely and well. This radical uncertainty about our situation, Heidegger argued, produces in us anxiety—anxiety that is heightened by our knowledge of death. “Being,” in other words, is bracketed by “time.” Humans are perishable beings that for the time being are.

Yet how should we “be”? That, for Heidegger, was the big question. Not “what is it good to do?” but “how is it good to be?” Typically, we have no answer to this question; we are barely even aware of it as a question. We go through life like a twig in a current, steered by a tide of sociability and conformity. Thus we lose ourselves; we cease to be “authentic.” Authenticity, for Heidegger, means coming to terms with our mortality and living the only life we get on our own terms. We cannot rely on God to show us the way; we are alone in the world, and have to find a way for ourselves. Frank Sinatra’s song, “I did it my way,” expresses a distinct Heideggerian consciousness.

Marcuse eventually broke with Heidegger when he heard that Heidegger had both joined the Nazi Party and become an apologist for Hitler. Marcuse seems to have had no objection to Heideggers’—or Hitler’s—national socialism, although being partly Jewish, he was naturally less enthusiastic about the accompanying anti-Semitism. Even so, Marcuse continued to draw from Heidegger’s philosophy to illuminate the political problems he was dealing with.

Essentially his problem was the same as the one Lenin faced: if the working class isn’t up for socialism, where to find a new proletariat to bring it about? Marcuse knew that modern industrialized countries like America couldn’t assemble the types of landless peasants and professional soldiers—the flotsam and jetsam of a backward feudal society—that Lenin relied on. So who could serve in the substitute proletariat that would be needed to agitate for socialism in America?

Marcuse looked around to identify which groups had a natural antipathy to capitalism. Marcuse knew he could count on the bohemian artists and intellectuals who had long considered hated industrial civilization, in part because they considered themselves superior to businessmen and shopkeepers. In Germany, this group distinguished “culture”—by which they meant art—from “civilization”—by which they meant industry—and they were decidedly on the side of culture. In fact, they used art and culture to rail against bourgeois capitalism.

These were the roots of bohemianism and the avant garde. “Bohemia,” wrote Henry Murger, “leads either to the Academy, the Hospital or the Morgue.” Elizabeth Wilson in her book Bohemians concurs. “Bohemia offered a refuge to psychological casualties too disturbed to undertake formal employment or conform to the rules of conventional society. It was a sanctuary for individuals who were so eccentric or suffered from such personal difficulties or outright psychological disorder that they could hardly have existeding outside a psychiatric institution other than in Bohemia.”

These self-styled “outcasts” were natural recruits for what Marcuse termed the Great Refusal—the visceral repudiation of free market society. The problem, however, was that these bohemians were confined to small sectors of Western society: the Schwabing section of Munich, the Left Bank of Paris, Greenwich Village in New York, and a handful of university campuses. By themselves, they were scarcely enough to hold a demonstration, let alone make a revolution.

A New Proletariat

So Marcuse had to search further. He had to think of a way to take bohemian culture mainstream, to normalize the outcasts and to turn normal people into outcasts. He started with an unlikely group of proles: the young people of the 1960s. Here, finally, was a group that could make up a mass movement.

Yet what a group! Fortunately, Marx wasn’t around to see it; he would have burst out laughing. Abbie Hoffman? Jerry Rubin? Mario Savio? Joan Baez? Bob Dylan? How could people of this sorry stripe, these slack, spoiled products of postwar prosperity, these parodies of humanity, these horny slothful loafers completely divorced from real-world problems, and neurotically focused on themselves, their drugs and sex lives and mind-numbing music, serve as the shock troops of revolution?

Marcuse’s insight was Heideggerian: by teaching them a new way to be “authentic.” By “raising their consciousness.” The students were already somewhat alienated from the larger society. They lived in these socialist communes called universities. They took for granted their amenities. Ungrateful slugs that they were, they despised rather than cherished their parents for the sacrifices made on their behalf. They sought “something more,” a form of self-fulfillment that went beyond material fulfillment.

Here, Marcuse recognized, was the very raw material out of which socialism is made in a rich, successful society. Perhaps there was a way to instruct them in oppression, to convert their spiritual anomie into political discontent. Marcuse was confident that an activist group of professors could raise the consciousness of a whole generation of students so that they could feel subjectively oppressed even if there were no objective forces oppressing them. Then they would become activists to fight not someone else’s oppression, but their own.

Of course it would take some work to make selfish, navel-gazing students into socially conscious activists. But to Marcuse’s incredible good fortune, the sixties was the decade of the Vietnam War. Students were facing the prospect of being drafted. Thus they had selfish reasons to oppose the war. Yet this selfishness could be harnessed by teaching the students that they weren’t draft-dodging cowards; rather, they were noble resisters who were part of a global struggle for social justice. In this way bad conscience could itself be recruited on behalf of left-wing activism.

Marcuse portrayed Ho Chi Minh and the Vietcong as a kind of Third World proletariat, fighting to free itself from American hegemony. This represented a transposition of Marxist categories. The new working class were the Vietnamese “freedom fighters.” The evil capitalists were American soldiers serving on behalf of the American government. Marcuse’s genius was to tell leftist students in the 1960s that the Vietnamese “freedom fighters” could not succeed without them.

“Only the internal weakening of the superpower,” Marcuse wrote in An Essay on Liberation, “can finally stop the financing and equipping of suppression in the backward countries.” In his vision, the students were the “freedom fighters” within the belly of the capitalist beast. Together the revolutionaries at home and abroad would collaborate in the Great Refusal. They would jointly end the war and redeem both Vietnam and America. And what would this redemption look like? In Marcuse’s words, “Collective ownership, collective control and planning of the means of production and distribution.” In other words, classical socialism.

Okay, so now we got the young people. Who else? Marcuse looked around America for more prospective proles, and he found, in addition to the students, three groups ripe for the taking. The first was the Black Power movement, which was adjunct to the civil rights movement. The beauty of this group, from Marcuse’s point of view, wais that it would not have to be instructed in the art of grievance; blacks had grievances that dated back centuries.

Consequently, here was a group that could be mobilized against the status quo, and if the status quo could be identified with capitalism, here was a group that should be open to socialism. Through a kind of Marxist transposition, “blacks” would become the working class, “whites” the capitalist class. Race, in this analysis, takes the place of class. This is how we get Afro-socialism, and from here it is a short step to Latino socialism and every other type of ethnic socialism.

Another emerging source of disgruntlement was the feminists. Marcuse recognized that with effective consciousness- raising they too could be taught to see themselves as an oppressed proletariat. This of course would require another Marxist transposition: “women” would now be viewed as the working class and “men” the capitalist class; the class category would now be shifted to gender.

“The movement becomes radical,” Marcuse wrote, “to the degree to which it aims, not only at equality within the job and value structure of the established society…but rather at a change in the structure itself.” Marcuse’s target wasn’t just the patriarchy; it was the monogamous family. In Gramscian terms, Marcuse viewed the heterosexual family itself as an expression of bourgeois culture, so in his view the abolition of the family would help hasten the advent of socialism.

Marcuse didn’t write specifically about homosexuals or transgenders, but he was more than aware of exotic and outlandish forms of sexual behavior, and the logic of identity socialism can easily be extended to all these groups. Once again we need some creative Marxist transposition. Gays and transgenders become the newest proletariat, and heterosexuals—even black and female heterosexuals—become their oppressors.

We see here the roots of “intersectionality.” As the Left now holds, one form of oppression is good but two is better and three or more is best. The true exemplar of identity socialism is a black or brown male transitioning to be a woman with a Third World background who is trying illegally to get into this country because his—oops, her—own country has allegedly been wiped off the map by climate change.

These latest developments go beyond Marcuse. He didn’t know about intersectionality, but he did recognize the emerging environmental movement as an opportunity to restrict and regulate capitalism. The goal, he emphasized, was “to drive ecology to the point where it is no longer containable within the capitalist framework,” although he recognized that this “means first extending the drive within the capitalist framework.”

Marcuse also inverted Freud to advocate the liberation of eros. Freud had argued that primitive man is single-mindedly devoted to “the pleasure principle,” but as civilization advances, the pleasure principle must be subordinated to what Freud termed “the reality principle.” In other words, civilization is the product of the subordination of instinct to reason. Repression, Freud argued, is the necessary price we must pay for civilization.

Marcuse argued that at some point, however, civilization reaches a point where humans can go the other way. They can release the very natural instincts that have been suppressed for so long and subordinate the reality principle to the pleasure principle. This would involve a release of what Marcuse termed “polymorphous sexuality” and the “reactivation of all erotogenic zones.”

We are a short distance here from the whole range of bizarre contemporary preoccupations: unisexuality—people falling in love with themselves—group sexuality, pansexuality—people who do not confine their sexuality to their species—and people who attempt to have sex with trees.

Marcuse recognized that mobilizing all these groups—the students, the environmentalists, the blacks, the feminists, the gays—would take time and require a great deal of consciousness- raising or reeducation. He saw the university as the ideal venue for carrying out this project, which is why he devoted his own life to teaching and training a generation of socialist and left-wing activists. Over time, Marcuse believed, the university could produce a new type of culture, and that culture would then metastasize into the larger society to infect the media, the movies, even the lifestyle of the titans of the capitalist class itself.

Marcuse, in other words, foresaw an America in which bourgeois culture would be replaced by avant garde culture. He foresaw a society in which billionaires would support socialist schemes that took away a part of their wealth in exchange for social recognition conferred by cultural institutions dominated by the socialists. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Mark Zuckerberg are three owlish geeks who were probably ridiculed in junior high school; they don’t seem to mind paying higher taxes if they can now hobnob with comedians, rock stars and Hollywood celebrities. Why only be rich when you can also be rich and cool?

Marcuse’s project—the takeover of the American university, to make it a tool of socialist indoctrination—did not succeed in his lifetime. In fact, as mentioned above, he got the boot when Governor Reagan pressured the regents of the university system not to renew Marcuse’s contract. In time, however, Marcuse succeeded as the activist generation of the 1960s gradually took over the elite universities. Today socialist indoctrination is the norm on the American campus, and Marcuse’s dream has been realized.

Marcuse is also the philosopher of Antifa. He argued, in a famous essay called “Repressive Tolerance,” that tolerance is not a norm or right that should be extended to all people. Yes, tolerance is good, but not when it comes to people who are intolerant. It is perfectly fine to be intolerant against them, to the point of disrupting them, shutting down their events, and even preventing them from speaking.

Marcuse didn’t use the term “hater,” but he invented the argument that it is legitimate to be hateful against haters. For Marcuse there were no limits to what could be done to discredit and ruin such people; he wanted the Left to defeat them “by any means necessary.” Marcuse even approved of certain forms of domestic terrorism, such as the Weather Underground bombing the Pentagon, on the grounds that the perpetrators were attempting to stop the greater violence that U.S. forces inflict on people in Vietnam and other countries.

Our world is quite different now from what it was in the 1960s, and yet there is so much that seems eerily familiar. When it comes to identitfy socialism, we are still living with Marcuse’s legacy.

Source: Dinesh D’Souza – a bestselling author and filmmaker. His new book “United States of Socialism” is published by St. Martin’s Press.

Articles: Identity Socialism; New socialism is identity socialism

de Blasio, Bill

Born Warren Wilhelm Jr. on May 8, 1961 in NYC. Historian Ron Radosh describes de Blasio as: (a) “a far left radical whose ancestors are the New Left and the Communists”; and (b) “a bona fide red diaper baby” who, “like many of his generation … kept his parents’ … pro-Communist politics not far from his heart.” Both of de Blasio’s parents were far leftists—most likely, members of the Communist Party USA or some of its numerous front groups. His mother, Maria de Blasio, worked in the early 1940s at the Office of War Information—a U.S. government agency staffed largely by pro-Soviet leftists who depicted the USSR in a positive light.

He grew up in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Shortly after graduating with a bachelor’s degree from New York University in 1983, he legally changed his name to Warren de Blasio-Wilhelm, adding his mother’s maiden name to his identity. In 2002 he changed his name for a second time and became Bill de Blasio.


In 1983, while he was still at NYU, Bill de Blasio toured parts of the Communist Soviet Union. This was a period of significant Cold War tension between the United States and the USSR, as the Soviets were attempting to permanently solidify their nuclear superiority over the U.S.  Notably, de Blasio at one time served as an organizer with the anti-nuclear, anti-American organization Physicians for Social Responsibility.

De Blasio took his first job in 1984 with the NYC Department of Juvenile Justice. Three years later, having recently earned a master’s degree at Columbia University‘s School of International and Public Affairs, he was hired to work as a political organizer by the Quixote Center (QC), a Maryland-based, Catholic social-justice organization with Marxist leanings.

In 1988 de Blasio, an ardent supporter of Nicaragua’s Marxist Sandinista government—which was backed by the Soviet Union, Cuban dictator Fidel Castroand Yasser Arafat‘s Palestine Liberation Organization—joined a number of his QC colleagues in a ten-day trip to Nicaragua to help distribute food and medicine to people who had been affected by the violent revolution that was raging there. (The Reagan administration, meanwhile, was giving financial and military aid to the Contras, who were seeking to overthrow the Sandinista regime.)

Upon returning home from Nicaragua, de Blasio began working for a New York-based nonprofit organization dedicated to improving health care in Central America. Continuing, moreover, to support the Sandinistas in whatever way he could, he joined the Nicaragua Solidarity Network of Greater New York,[1] an organization that held meetings and fundraisers on their behalf. De Blasio also subscribed to the Sandinista party’s newspaper, Barricadda. He continues to speak admiringly of the Sandinistas to this day, lauding the “humble” and “really inspirational” blend of “youthful energy and idealism” that they brought to the task of “trying to figure out what would [make their society] work better.” “I’m very proud to have been deeply involved in a movement that rightfully thought U.S. policy toward Central America was wrong-headed and counter-productive and not in line with our values,” de Blasio said in September 2013. “I’m proud to have been involved in the effort that was challenging that.”


David Dinkins

In 1989 de Blasio served as a volunteer coordinator for the NYC mayoral campaign of Democrat David Dinkins. Following Dinkins’ victory, de Blasio became an aide in City Hall.

The New Party

When asked in 1990 to describe his political views, de Blasio replied that he was an advocate of “democratic socialism.” In the mid-nineties, he served as executive director of the New York branch of the New Party, a pro-socialist, ACORN-affiliated entity to which Barack Obama likewise belonged.

Charles Rangel; Cuba

In 1994 de Blasio managed New York Congressman Charles Rangel‘s re-election campaign. When de Blasio married former lesbian activist Chirlane McCray that same year, the couple honeymooned in Fidel Castro‘s Cuba, in violation of the U.S. ban on travel to that country.

Bill Clinton & Al Gore

In 1996 de Blasio ran the New York state operation for the ClintonGore re-election campaign.

Andrew Cuomo

From 1997-99 de Blasio served as the New York/New Jersey regional director of the Clinton administration’s Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), where he served under HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo. During that period, said HUD inspector general Susan Gaffney, de Blasio’s region lost approximately $23 million to scams perpetrated by public-housing officials, mortgage companies, and nonprofit groups that received grants from HUD. The New York Times, meanwhile, reported that in 1998-99, several people had defrauded HUD of $70 million in federally insured loans on more than 250 New York properties.

Hillary Clinton

De Blasio left HUD in 1999 to become campaign manager for Hillary Clinton‘s 2000 U.S. Senate bid.


New York City Council

From 2001-09, de Blasio served on the New York City Council, representing District 39 in Brooklyn.

Honoring Robert Mugabe

In 2002 de Blasio joined a number of fellow legislators—mostly from the City Council’s Black, Hispanic, and Asian Caucus—in a City Hall ceremony honoring Robert Mugabe, the openly anti-white, Marxist dictator of Zimbabwe.

Public Advocate

In 2009 de Blasio was elected as New York City’s third Public Advocate. His candidacy was supported by the SEIUUNITE HERE!, and the pro-socialist Working Families Party.

Supporter of ACORN

In September 2009, when the community organization ACORN was engulfed in several major scandals involving voter-registration-fraud, embezzlement, money laundering, and racketeering, de Blasio wrote a letter to ACORN’s leaders reaffirming his support for the organization, though noting that he was “troubled” by the recent revelations.

Opposed the Citizens United Supreme Court Decision

De Blasio was a vocal opponent of the January 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, which: (a) struck down a ban on corporations and labor unions using money from their general funds to produce and air campaign ads in races for congressional and presidential races, and (b) overturned a prohibition against corporations and unions airing campaign ads during the 30 days immediately preceding a primary or the 60 days preceding a general election.

Supporter of Occupy Wall Street

In the fall of 2011 de Blasio expressed solidarity with the anti-capitalist Occupy Wall Street movement.


Support from Prominent Leftists

In January 2013 de Blasio announced his candidacy for Mayor of New York City. His campaign received endorsements from such notables as Alec BaldwinHarry Belafonte, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Howard DeanJerrold Nadler, Barack Obama, Sarah Jessica Parker, Susan Sarandon, Charles Schumer, George Soros, Kathleen Turner, and many others. After de Blasio won the Democratic primary that September, it was announced that he would also be the nominee on the Working Families Party line in the general election.

Patrick Gaspard, a former New Party staffer and Obama administration official with significant ties to ACORN, is a close friend of de Blasio and played a key role in shaping the latter’s mayoral campaign.

In August 2013, de Blasio received the endorsement of the billionaire financier George Soros, who contributed the legal limit of $4,950 to the campaign. Soros’ relationship with de Blasio actually dated back to 2011, when Soros had given $400,000 to de Blasio’s Coalition for Accountability in Political Spending.

After de Blasio’s primary victory in September 2013, longtime ACORN leader Bertha Lewis, who said that her political and ideological ties to de Blasio “go back a long time,” predicted a comeback for ACORN’s successor group in New York—New York Communities for Change—under a de Blasio administration. According to a Democratic insider, “ACORN’s long-range plan since 2001 was to elect de Blasio mayor. De Blasio was a big ACORN project.”

Read more at Discover the Networks…

See Also:


It is the lower form of communism and communism is the higher form of socialism. Socialism is when the means of production are collectively owned by society, which leads to communism, the end goal of socialism – when classes, states, religion, and money have been abolished. A social movement, not an economic one, with the primary objective being to destroy the social and moral fabric of society, using economic control as a major tool. It has been sold in schools throughout the world as a modern Utopia where everything is made fair by the government, and all human needs are provided to the poor, the ill, the unemployed. It’s a lie and a trojan horse for totalitarianism cloaked in glitter to fool the populous! Modern socialism began as a rejection of Western Christian civilization and the moral and political values it produced. It is no accident that, in countries where socialism has triumphed over all its rivals, the government moves to destroy every pillar of culture, especially religion and family, and transforms itself into the ultimate authority on values.

Let’s begin by illustrating a point using a short story: During the long-ago days of the British Empire in India, British authorities became concerned over the large numbers of venomous cobras infesting the city of Delhi. Because Hindus both fear and revere cobras, many Indians are reluctant to kill them. The British colonial government decided to create a strong incentive for the locals to get rid of cobras. They began offering sizable bounties for dead snakes, and before long, the authorities were deluged with cobra carcasses. Strangely, while the government doled out a fortune in bounties, the local cobra population showed no signs of decreasing. Eventually, the authorities discovered why this was the case. Spurred on by the opportunity to make money, the locals had taken to raising large numbers of cobras in captivity, in order to kill them and collect the bounty. Dismayed, the British government retracted the cobra bounty — whereupon large numbers of captive cobras were released since they were no longer of any economic value. Delhi ended up with a larger cobra population than ever.

Marxist Vladimir Lenin knew communism would be a tough sell so he turned to socialism to achieve communism. By convincing the gullible and jaundiced they’d collectively control all economic and social resources, he created a new brand of communism – Leninism. In his  book State and Revolution, he wrote: “…socialism is just the lower phase of communism used to facilitate true communist puerility which is its highest phase. Karl Marx believed socialism was the easiest road to pure communism.”

While it is unclear how accurate this story might be, the “cobra effect” is a well-known consequence of misplaced good intentions. It is what usually happens when government engages in what is called “social engineering”: Good intentions lead to bad results. And nowhere is it more widespread than in the type of government called “socialism.”

'The Naked Socialist' author, Paul Skousen, explains socialism
The Robert Herriman Show has Paul Skousen, son of Cleon Skousen who authored The Naked Communist and The Naked Capitalist, on his show to discuss socialism, its history and progress that has led to where we are today. Paul explains: What is socialism? What is the history with socialism and force? What happened in Jamestown? and the discussion of rights and more are discussed in the interview.

Skousen identifies the seven pillars of socialism:

  1. An all powerful ruler or group of rulers (technocracy, oligarchy, etc.)
  2. Division of society into casts (ruler(s), elite, middle class (enforcers who are rewarded for obedience), and the working class at the bottom
  3. promise of security (food, water, etc.) to seem merciful and eliminate revolt
  4. regulation of every aspect of society
  5. Powerful police / military force to enforce regulations and punish those who do not comply
  6. control of media, information to disseminate propaganda
  7. Rights are privilege of the state, not a God and can be granted or taken away as they please

He also explains how the U.S. Constitution was written to end socialism in all of its forms, but thorugh our own corruption and elcting of corrupt politicians, we have almost destroyed those safeguards.

What is socialism? To increasing numbers of young Americans, “socialism” has come to mean a society where everything is made fair by the government, and all human needs are provided to the poor, the ill, the unemployed, and anyone else living in difficult circumstances. “Socialism” conjures up images of a modern utopia, a world where inequality, discrimination, and poverty are things of the past, and where finely tuned government will use its powers exclusively to promote well-being and cure longstanding social ills. In particular, socialism is often offered as a solution by those wanting government to provide housing, food, employment, medical care, and education, as well as to tightly manage market activity via environmental, financial, labor, and price controls and regulations.

Most modern governments, from Canada to the European Union to Latin America to East Asia, already do all of these things, and so it is not a stretch to say that most modern governments are socialist, at least to some extent. There are different flavors of socialism, to be sure; communism, Marxism, and progressivism are all socialist movements, which is why “communist” regimes such as the former Soviet Union (the USSR, or Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) always describe themselves as socialist. Communism is a further development or “higher stage” of socialism.

But all of them share one cardinal feature: the belief that the role of government is to plan, manage, control, and regulate all aspects of human activity, since personal liberty cannot be trusted to promote social order and equality. This, the central thesis of modern socialism, has come to replace in many people’s minds the belief in the power and superiority of liberty that most Americans used to embrace. Put otherwise: If you believe that individual liberty is a nice idea in theory but won’t work in practice, you’re sympathetic to socialism.

Socialism is usually sold in the name of fairness and equality. Old-fashioned individual rights and free markets inevitably lead to inequalities and discrimination, argue socialist sympathizers. This is why the chaos of liberty needs to be replaced with cadres of government experts empowered to guarantee fairness and equality, by planning economic production, regulating finance, redistributing wealth, and engaging in every imaginable type of social engineering.

But before looking at whether these socialist goals are achievable or even desirable, let’s consider a few hypothetical scenarios typical of modern socialism — including socialism right here in the United States. Ask yourself whether the following situations could truly be considered “fair”:

  • You’re in a difficult college chemistry class where, because the students are enthusiastic about socialism, the professor has told students he will give them all the exact same grade in the class, in the name of equality, if more than half of them want that plan — an average of all their grades. You’re trying to get into medical school and need straight A’s to have a realistic chance of acceptance, but your classmates voted for the plan, nearly ensuring you’ll get less than an A because many students will surely slack off on studying, counting on a few hard workers to keep grades up. That’s socialism — is it fair?
  • Your parents started their own business in their 30s, risking their life savings and ownership of their house to open a restaurant. After working 80-hour weeks for 20 years, taking only two vacations in that entire time, they have saved enough to have a good retirement ($20 million). Your parents will not give you money for college because they believe if you have to use your own money for school, you’ll work harder, so you will have to borrow $80,000 to go to your state university for four years — because the college has documented that your parents have enough money to pay tuition bills. You will be paying back your loans with interest for the next 15 to 20 years, while a student whose family recently moved here from Poland will get free tuition from the same college because his parents make less than $50,000 a year. That’s socialism — is it fair?
  • You’re in your thirties and have held some type of job since you were 12. You didn’t go to college because school didn’t interest you and it was very expensive, but you managed to create a successful landscaping business through working long hours, saving to buy the equipment necessary to open the entity, and building a reputation as an honest businessman. Now, you are not only taxed at an exorbitant rate to pay for other people to go to college, but you’re losing some of your biggest accounts because companies get tax breaks for hiring minority-headed contracting businesses and you’re white. That’s socialism — is it fair?
  • You’re in your early 70s and are retired. While you didn’t plan on having a luxurious retirement, you did plan on a comfortable one, since you have put money from your manufacturing job into a retirement account since your early twenties, and your stock portfolio has grown. With your Social Security payments and investment income combined, you planned to live on a lake in the woods and fish regularly, having the grandchildren visit often. But things haven’t gone as planned: Government Social Security payments not only have not kept up with inflation, but property taxes on your retirement cottage have skyrocketed, so you can’t afford to live on the lake anymore. Not only that, you notice that taxes on gas, capital gains from your prudent investments, and many other inescapable budget items have all crept upward over the years, while the interest rates and real value of your bank-based savings have fallen. In fact, inflation and ever-higher taxes are making it hard to pay the bills even in a cheap house in a low-income neighborhood. Retirement on the lakeshore has now become an impossible dream, and all because of socialist-inspired government spending — is that fair?

Experiences like these will be familiar to countless millions of people living under socialism all over the world. As socialism sets in (and the process often takes several generations), people see their standards of living erode and, eventually, the entire fabric of society that was once familiar remade into something both economically and culturally alien. In fact, culture is the key.

Societal Socialism

In the end, socialism isn’t mainly about economics; it’s about cultural change. Socialism is first and foremost (as the word implies) a social movement, not an economic one. The primary objective of socialism is to destroy the social and moral fabric of society, using economic control as a major tool.

Modern socialism began as a rejection of Western Christian civilization and the moral and political values it produced. From its early beginnings — in revolutionary France in the late 18th century and in the eccentric socialist communes of Britain and America in the early 19th century — socialist utopias always were based on the eradication of traditional family ties and religious beliefs. Sexual “liberation,” including communal marriages, and the substitution of pagan and even atheist beliefs for Christian doctrine, were necessary preconditions for a social order that required renouncing individuality, private property, and allegiances to family and church.

So-called sexual liberation, as well as freedom from economic want, have headlined socialist sales pitches: In return for allowing a governing entity to take one’s freedom of choice in many areas, including what to believe, how to use one’s time, or how to spend one’s earned wealth, physical pleasures and safety nets have been offered in return.

Socialists needed to sell something worth having, since there’s no escaping a simple rule that should be obvious to anyone: More laws equals less freedom.

And since the Christian religion preaches reliance on God, not man, and is against the idea of “redistribution of wealth” — taking by force from one to give to another — deeming it theft, socialism has always worked to undermine Christianity to achieve its goals. By the mid-19th century, the dominant form of socialism was communism. Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto expended a lot of ink on the need to eradicate religion and family ties, by any means necessary. And communism’s well-known hostility to God and family is shared by all other forms of socialism, although behind a kinder, gentler mask of “tolerance.”

Hence the accusations against Christians, by those who call themselves “liberals” and “progressives” (modern terms for socialists and socialist sympathizers), for being “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” “oppressive,” etc. — though Christianity advocates loving the sinner, just not the sin, and a couple dozen Christian rules for living pale in comparison — oppression-wise — to the volumes of rules that accompany socialist laws.

Of course, attacks on Christians are justified as being anti-discriminatory, but that provides only a thin veneer of justification over the top of glaring injustice. All people and businesses discriminate, but usually only Christians in liberal society suffer for being discriminatory. Examples of allowed discrimination are many: Secular humanist stores don’t sell Bibles (religious discrimination); homosexual dating and travel sites don’t cater to heterosexuals (sex discrimination); some dating sites and college scholarships are black-only (race discrimination); most hat stores don’t sell Jewish yarmulkes (religious discrimination); women’s clothing stores usually carry limited sizes (weight discrimination); luxury car dealers and hotels don’t provide discounts to the poor (poverty discrimination); many fitness clubs and doctors cater to women only (sex discrimination); department stores often sell underwear but don’t sell sheer lingerie (lifestyle discrimination); etc.

Christian religion is tolerated by socialists only to the extent that religious groups will bend their beliefs to accommodate socialist ideology; hence, the “official” churches in China and the USSR, and the exclusion of other belief systems. Socialism, by its very nature, is intolerant and hateful.

Similarly, liberals dub Christianity “intolerant,” “patriarchal,” and the like, and Western culture “Eurocentric,” “imperialist,” and so on, though socialism when enacted will command, and even eliminate, the most mundane of individual behaviors.

To undo traditional culture, socialist talking points commonly demean and belittle the status quo. According to the reasoning of socialist radicals, America, the most diverse and inclusive society the world has ever seen, is somehow bigoted, racist, and intolerant above all else. The country that invented modern liberty and limited republican government is a model of oppression. And the country that has done more than any other to advance human learning via the world’s greatest universities and scholarly community is somehow guilty of systemic ignorance and Eurocentrism.

It is no accident that, in countries where socialism has triumphed over all its rivals, the government moves to destroy every pillar of culture, especially religion and family, and transforms itself into the ultimate authority on values. During China’s horrific “cultural revolution,” the communist government set out to destroy Chinese traditional culture root and branch. Families were brutally torn apart and children re-educated. Traditional values — in China embodied by the precepts of Buddhism, Taoism, and the philosophy of Confucius — were all attacked and replaced by the Communist Party as the only legitimate source of moral standards. This policy continues to this day; little of Chinese traditional culture is taught in government schools. While some semblance of normal family values has returned to China, the government still dictates how many children parents can have. The communists also act as the national guardians of virtue, being engaged in nonstop anti-corruption campaigns to stamp out drugs, prostitution, bribery, and other social ills — mostly by tightly controlling the Internet and other forms of free speech and association. Such have been the far-ranging consequences of the socialist cultural makeover of China.

That same overall goal is being sought in Europe, as EU countries are being flooded with Third World immigrants, while citizens in those countries are being arrested if they disagree with the massive cultural changes taking place — same result as China, though with less violence.

Misconceptions of Socialism

Despite the cultural realignment that is the main thrust of socialism, it is widely perceived by those sold on socialism as being nothing more than a better economic alternative to free market capitalism, though the belief that socialism can and will make everyone well-off is an illusion. It is worth taking a look at a few of the many widely believed economic misconceptions used to promote socialism.

Misconception #1: Socialism will ensure that all Americans have access to high-quality, low-cost, timely healthcare. 

Socialized medicine has been one of the top selling points for socialism for a long time, and countries such as Canada and Great Britain are celebrated by leftists everywhere for their allegedly successful socialized healthcare systems, though the efficiency and effectiveness of those systems are way oversold, and they often actually provide substandard care as compared to medical care in America. (See article on page 17.)

Over time, the United States has created a partially socialized healthcare system, beginning with Lyndon Johnson’s creation of Medicare and Medicaid, and continuing with countless other government controls over healthcare, including President Obama’s Affordable Care Act — a hodgepodge of public and private interests that nobody really understands, and that, most everyone agrees, is broken beyond repair.

Running contrary to the promises of socialism, each time the government has gotten involved in the healthcare system, it has caused unintended consequences and distortions — much like our example of the Indian cobras — causing more harm than good. Not only is the U.S. government responsible for health insurance being issued through one’s job — because of price controls the U.S. government introduced in WWII — making medical care less accessible to some than others, nearly every action of government has led to bad results, especially making healthcare more expensive or less accessible. Here are a few, of numerous, examples:

  • Government limits the number of doctors available to practice — at the behest of doctors, because doctors want to get paid a lot — by limiting residency slots available, by making it difficult for foreign doctors to be admitted to practice here, by limiting how many doctors may practice a certain specialty in a given locale, and more.
  • Government causes high drug prices by renewing and extending patents on drugs when small, unimportant drug-formulation changes are made by pharmaceutical companies. And government also raises drug costs by allowing drug marketing companies to demand kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies to sell their products under exclusive contracts, as explained at, causing some drug prices to rise in excess of 400 percent (raising drug costs in the United States by hundreds of billions of dollars per year) and causing some drugs to be unavailable altogether. (This is legalized racketeering, thanks to Congress.)
  • Government boosted healthcare costs to those with private insurance or no insurance by underpaying for Medicaid patients, causing medical providers to make up their losses elsewhere. Underpaying for Medicaid services also made it difficult for Medicaid patients to find a doctor willing to treat them, leading to worse care and shorter lives for Medicaid patients with heart conditions and head, neck, breast, and colon cancers.
  • Government boosted the opioid overdose epidemic by providing opioids such as oxycodone to Medicaid patients for free or nearly free, a drug program that the Medicaid patients saw as an opportunity to make easy money by selling the drugs on the streets, or as a cheap way to get an opioid “fix,” according to the U.S. Senate.

(Question: Since government officials must either have been ignorant or corrupt to allow the aforementioned things to occur, what are the chances they will run an efficient and equitable healthcare system?)

Analysis tells us that it’s simply untrue that government provision of medical care will mean more and better care, as should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it. Because of the incentive structure associated with socialism, government-run entities are always much more expensive and much less efficient than their counterparts in the private sector. This is obviously true with, for example, government-run post offices versus private shipping firms such as FedEx, or with government-run versus private airlines, buses, and other modes of transportation. (Consider whether Uber and Lyft are better than government-sanctioned cab-company monopolies.) While there are some tasks that government is arguably required to perform — military spending, road and bridge construction, for example — all such government projects always end up with delays and cost overruns. This is because, where government is concerned, delays and excessive spending are incentivized. Politicians derive power from bloated budgets and big projects, and the more money and time spent, the greater the political leverage. The more people and bureaucrats involved, the more likely that a budget item will survive, since large, overfunded projects appear to create lots of jobs and are politically difficult to defund.

This is why government healthcare is always massively inefficient and poor quality. It may not be paid for out of pocket at the inpatient reception desk, but it will be paid for — with interest — via massive taxation. As for the quality of government-run healthcare, the exodus of well-heeled Canadians (including, not long ago, the premier of a Canadian province) to American hospitals for major medical procedures such as heart surgery speaks for itself.

Before socialization overwhelmed American medicine, healthcare was cheap and convenient. Socialized medicine removes the element of choice (another word for freedom), and instead of a menu of different care options and a wide range of possible healthcare providers, it provides one or a very limited range of options dictated by the government, not the consumer, to save money. For instance, when drugs cost a lot, Britain’s National Health Service simply refuses to allow them to be used. And we get a system that incentivizes patients to overuse their “unlimited” healthcare benefits, incentivizes doctors to recommend treatments that pay the most, and incentivizes government to ration care to lower costs. Hardly a win-win-win situation.

Misconception #2: Socialism means “equality,” spreading wealth and opportunity so that everyone gets their fair share. 

This misconception involves several cons. Foremost is the redistribution con. Before wealth can be redistributed, it must first be taken from someone. And where will we find the angelic beings who are to be trusted to wisely and fairly redistribute the wealth once it’s gathered? Experience tells us we won’t find them. We always end up with political elites living in splendor, while everyone else is mired in squalor and deprivation. Even as China and Russia have allowed some capitalism — because socialism had impoverished their countries — the great majority of the new wealth is concentrated in the hands of the “former communists.”

As the government consumes and controls more and more of the wealth of a given country, those in the government and connected to it benefit disproportionately, and it becomes ever more difficult for the average Joe to make ends meet; he is forced to accept more and more dependence on government “aid,” a fact used by the Left to push for more government control.

The socialist vision of equality, the belief that only government can level people in society, never ends up elevating society to new, higher levels of equality in health, prosperity, and education. Instead, it has the long-term effect of bringing everyone down to a lower, common level of misery, eliminating any possibility for individuals to improve their circumstances by free choice. This is true because socialism stops, or at least slows, wealth creation because government can never meet the desires, demands, and needs of consumers as well as businesses do — and that is how wealth is created.

Because businesses must either meet consumer demand or, as in the case of the creation of smartphones, create new consumer demand to make money, businesses usually react swiftly to consumers’ wants. When consumers express dislike for menu items, car styles, a price point, a ball color, golf club performance, or anything else, businesses will strive to meet consumer desires — or will go out of business. Consumers dictate what products will be produced and in what quantity. Under socialism, to a large extent, government dictates what products will be produced: what pharmaceuticals will be available, what new medical experiments will be funded, what type of cars you should drive, what type of house you should live in, etc. — and all those decisions get made based on favoritism, bribes, family connections, or simply bureaucratic whim, stifling innovation and taking funds companies would use for job and wealth creation if they were allowed to keep the cash.

And while it seems entirely wrong that a handful of Americans, such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Mark Zuckerberg, and a few others, have as much money as most of the rest of the country combined, this perception of wrongness rests on the errant belief that the country has a fixed amount of wealth and that, in the name of fairness, that wealth should be more equally distributed. That claim is not true. New companies, new products, and new services can create new wealth, so many of the rich in this country are actually helping raise the standard of living for Americans as a whole, even as they become exceptionally rich. On the other hand, concentrated wealth is a problem under socialism because that ideology interferes with wealth creation.

As Winston Churchill famously pointed out, “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

Nor is any of this idle speculation. The evidence is very clear, from decades and decades of socialist experimentation both at home and abroad. The present situation in Venezuela has grabbed headlines in recent years. There, in what was not long ago Latin America’s wealthiest country, “Bolivarian” socialism has taken a fearful toll, plunging the country into unimaginable poverty — this, even as the country’s brutal dictator, Nicolás Maduro, stubbornly clings to power while his people starve or flee abroad. Zimbabwe, with inflation reaching 89.7 sextillion percent year-on-year in 2008, is another poster child for the toll that generational socialism will take, and South Africa now seems determined to follow the same tragic path. While socialists always protest that such examples are not typical, and represent the tragic misapplication of socialist principles, the facts don’t back them up. In the United States, socialism at the level of state and local government has wrecked entire cities such as Detroit, and is now destroying once-prosperous California. Formerly the place where dreams come true, California is now in very sorry shape, with disease, poverty, and crime rampant in her largest cities, uncontrolled wildfires destroying vast swaths of towns and suburbs (the result of decades of bad government environmental policy), and state and city governments teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. All this, while California’s political leaders focus their energy on providing sanctuary for illegal immigrants, spending billions on high-speed railroad boondoggles, and even — at the time of this writing — intending to spend $100 million per year to provide full health coverage for low-income illegal immigrants aged 19 to 25.

Too, American Indian reservations, classic examples of government planning, have been under the superintendence of the federal government for generations — and poverty, crime, and numerous other social ills remain the norm.

Capitalism, and freedom in general, has just the opposite effect. All of the miraculous progress of the modern world is the result of capitalism, of risk-taking and innovation, not central planning. Even heavily socialized countries such as China have made considerable progress — in exact proportion to their willingness to allow capitalism to take root. And it has been capitalism, not socialism, that, by incentivizing progress in medicine, food production, transportation, information technology, and so on, that has immeasurably improved standards of living almost everywhere in the world, leading to drastic increases in the quality of living for an overwhelming majority of people. So much for the socialist caricature of wicked, morally challenged capitalism!

Continued on next page…

Fabian Society

The Fabian Society was founded on 4 January 1884 in London to promote Socialism and is named after the Roman General Fabius Maximus, who fought Hannibal’s army in small, carefully planned strategies of debilitating skirmishes to slowly wear down his enemies over a long period of time to obtain victory rather than attempting one decisive battle. It originated and as an offshoot of a society founded a year earlier called The Fellowship of the New Life, with the purpose of forming a single, global socialist state. “Fabian Socialism” uses incremental change over a long period of time to slowly transform a state as opposed to using violent revolution for change. It is essentially socialism by stealth and gradualism, a slow march towards a New World Order.

According to author Jon Perdue, “The logo of the Fabian Society, a tortoise, represented the group’s predilection for a slow, imperceptible transition to socialism, while its coat of arms, a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’, represented its preferred methodology for achieving its goal.” The wolf in sheep’s clothing symbolism was later abandoned, due to its obvious negative connotations.

Its nine founding members were Frank Podmore, Edward R. Pease, William Clarke, Hubert Bland, Percival Chubb, Frederick Keddell, H. H. Champion, Edith Nesbit, and Rosamund Dale Owen. Havelock Ellis is sometimes also mentioned as a tenth founding member, though there is some question about this. Immediately upon its inception, the Fabian Society began attracting many prominent contemporary figures drawn to its socialist cause, including George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, Annie Besant, Graham Wallas, Hubert Bland, Edith Nesbit, Sydney Olivier, Oliver Lodge, Leonard Woolf and Virginia Woolf, Ramsay MacDonald and Emmeline Pankhurst. Even Bertrand Russell briefly became a member, but resigned after he expressed his belief that the Society’s principle of entente (in this case, countries allying themselves against Germany) could lead to war.

The Fabian Society was named—at the suggestion of Frank Podmore—in honour of the Roman general Fabius Maximus (nicknamed “Cunctator”, meaning the “Delayer”). His Fabian strategy sought gradual victory against the Carthaginian army under the renowned general Hannibal through persistence, harassment, and wearing the enemy down by attrition rather than head-on battles. An explanatory note appearing on the title page of the group’s first pamphlet declared:

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.

According to author Jon Perdue, “The logo of the Fabian Society, a tortoise, represented the group’s predilection for a slow, imperceptible transition to socialism, while its coat of arms, a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’, represented its preferred methodology for achieving its goal.” The wolf in sheep’s clothing symbolism was later abandoned, due to its obvious negative connotations.

H.G. Wells wrote a book to serve as a guide showing how collectivism can be embedded into society without arousing alarm or serious opposition. It was called The Open Conspiracy, and the plan was spelled out in minute detail. His fervor was intense. He said that the old religions of the world must give way to the new religion of collectivism. The new religion should be the state, he said, and the state should take charge of all human activity with, of course, elitists such as himself in control. On the very first page, he says:

“This book states as plainly and clearly as possible the essential ideas of my life, the perspective of my world…. This is my religion. Here are my directive aims and the criteria of all I do.”1

When he said that collectivism was his religion, he was serious. Like many collectivists, he felt that traditional religion is a barrier to the acceptance of state power. It is a competitor for man’s loyalties. Collectivists see religion as a device by which the clerics keep the downtrodden masses content by offering a vision of something better in the next world. If your goal is to bring about change, contentment is not what you want. You want discontentment. That’s why Marx called religion the opiate of the masses.2 It gets in the way of revolutionary change.

Wells said that collectivism should become the new opiate3, that it  should become the vision for better things in the next world. The new order must be built on the concept that individuals are nothing compared to the long continuum of society, and that only by serving society do we become connected to eternity. He was very serious.

  1. H.G. Wells, The Open Conspiracy (New York: Doubleday, Doran and Co., 1928), p. vii.
  2. There is disagreement over the correct translation from the German text. One translation is opium of the people.
  3. It’s a small matter, but we prefer opiate of the masses because we believe it is a more accurate translation and is more consistent with the fiery vocabulary of Marx.

The blueprint in The Open Conspiracy has been followed in all the British dependencies and the United Sates. As a result, today’s world is very close to the vision of  H.G. Wells. A worship of the god called society has become a new religion. No matter what insult to our dignity or liberty, we are told it’s necessary for the advancement of society, and that has become the basis for contentment under the hardships of collectivism. The greater good for the greater number has become the opiate of the masses.


Fabians and Marxists are in agreement over their mutual goal of collectivism, but they differ over style and sometimes tactics. When Marxism became fused with Leninism and made its first conquest in Russia, these differences became the center of debate between the two groups. Karl Marx said the world was divided into two camps eternally at war with each other. One was the working class, which he called the proletariat, and the other was the wealthy class, those who owned the land and the means of production. This class he called the bourgeoisie.

Fabians were never enthusiastic over this class-conflict view, probably because most of them were bourgeoisie, but Lenin and Stalin accepted it wholeheartedly. Lenin described the Communist Party as the “vanguard of the proletariat,” and it became a mechanism for total and ruthless war against anyone who even remotely could be considered bourgeoisie.

When the Bolsheviks (Zionists N.M.) came to power in Russia, landowners and shopkeepers were slaughtered by the tens of thousands. This brutality offended the sensibilities of the more genteel Fabians. It’s not that Fabians are opposed to force and violence to accomplish their goals, it’s just that they prefer it as a last resort, whereas the Leninists were running amuck in Russia implementing a plan of deliberate terror and brutality. Fabians admired the Soviet system because it was based on collectivism but they were shocked at what they considered to be needless bloodshed. It was a disagreement over style. When Lenin became the master of Russia, many of the Fabians joined the Communist Party thinking that it would become the vanguard of world Socialism. They likely would have stayed there if they hadn’t been offended by the brutality of the regime.

To understand the love-hate relationship between these two groups we must never lose sight of the fact that Leninism and Fabianism are merely variants of collectivism. Their similarities are much greater than their differences. That is why their members often move from one group to the other – or why some of them are actually members of both groups at the same time. Leninists and Fabians are usually friendly with each other. They may disagree intensely over theoretical issues and style, but never over goals.

Margaret Cole was the Chairman of the Fabian Society in 1955 and ‘56. Her father, G.D.H. Cole, was one of the early leaders of the organization dating back to 1937. In her book, The Story of Fabian Socialism, she describes the common bond that binds collectivists together. She says:

It plainly emerges that the basic similarities were much greater than the differences, that the basic Fabian aims of the abolition of poverty, through legislation and administration; of the communal control of production and social life …, were pursued with unabated energy by people trained in Fabian traditions, whether at the moment of time they called themselves Fabians or loudly repudiated the name….

The fundamental likeness is attested by the fact that, after the storms produced first by Syndicalism1 and then by the Russian Revolution in its early days had died down, those “rebel Fabians” who had not joined the Communist Party (and the many who having initially joined it, left in all haste), together with G.D.H. Cole’s connections in the working-class education movement and his young disciples from Oxford of the ‘twenties, found no mental difficulty in entering the revived Fabian Society of 1939 – nor did the surviving faithful find any difficulty with collaborating with them.2

Fabians are, according to their own symbolism, wolves in sheep’s clothing, and that explains why their style is more effective in countries where parliamentary traditions are well established and where people expect to have a voice in their own political destiny.

Leninists, on the other hand, tend to be wolves in wolf’s clothing, and their style is more effective in countries where parliamentary traditions are weak and where people are used to dictatorships anyway.

In countries where parliamentary traditions are strong, the primary tactic for both of these groups is to send their agents into the power centers of society to capture control from the inside. Power centers are those organizations and institutions that represent all the politically influential segments of society. These include labor unions, political parties, church organizations, segments of the media, educational institutions, civic organizations, financial institutions, and industrial corporations, to name just a few. In a moment, I am going to read a partial list of members of an organization called the Council on Foreign Relations, and you will recognize that the power centers these people control are classic examples of this strategy.

The combined influence of all these entities adds up to the total political power of the nation. To capture control of a nation, all that is required is to control its power centers, and that has been the strategy of Leninists and Fabians alike. They may disagree over style; they may compete over which of them will dominate the coming New World Order, over who will hold the highest positions in the pyramid of power; they may even send opposing armies into battle to establish territorial preeminence over portions of the globe, but they never quarrel over goals. Through it all, they are blood brothers under the skin, and they will always unite against their common enemy, which is any opposition to collectivism.

It is impossible to understand what is unfolding in the War on Terrorism today without being aware of that reality.


The Fabian symbols of the turtle and the wolf in sheep’s clothing are emblazoned on a stained glass window that used to be in the Fabian headquarters. The window has been removed, we are told, for safety, but there are many photographs showing the symbols in great detail. The most significant part appears at the top. It is that famous line from Omar Khayyam:

Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire, would we not shatter it to bits and then remould it nearer to the hearts desire?

1 Syndicalism is a variant of collectivism in which labor unions play a dominant role in government and industry.

2 Margaret Cole, The Story of Fabian Socialism (Stanford, California, Stanford University Press, 1961), p. xii.

5 Please allow me to repeat that line. This is the key to modern history, and it unlocks the door that hides the secret of the war on terrorism:

Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire, would we not shatter it to bits and then remould it nearer to the hearts desire?

Elsewhere in the window there is a depiction of Sydney Webb and George Bernard Shaw striking the earth with hammers. The earth is on an anvil, and they are striking it with hammers – to shatter it to bits! That’s what they were saying at the Carnegie Endowment Fund. That’s what they were saying at the Ford Foundation. “War is the best way to remold society. War! It will shatter society to bits, break it apart. Then we can remold it nearer to the heart’s desire.” And what is their heart’s desire? Ladies and Gentlemen, it is collectivism.


See all events tagged ‘Fabian socialism

Fabian Society 2; Fabian Society 3

History of Events Related to Fabian Socialism

Richard Gardner: "...the ’House of World Order’ Will Have to be Built from the Bottom up Rather than from the Top Down... Eroding it (Sovereignty) Piece by Piece"

Richard Gardner: “…the ’House of World Order’ Will Have to be Built from the Bottom up Rather than from the Top Down… Eroding it (Sovereignty) Piece by Piece”

In the April issue of the CFR journal, 'Foreign Affairs' (p 558), Richard Gardner is quoted from a 1968 speech he gave: If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems, but it comes down essentially to this: The ...
Read More
The Leftist, Socialist Group SDS Published a Pamphlet Titled 'Socialism and the Coming Decade' Changing Their Social Change Tactics from Stealth to Eschewing Controversy

The Leftist, Socialist Group SDS Published a Pamphlet Titled ‘Socialism and the Coming Decade’ Changing Their Social Change Tactics from Stealth to Eschewing Controversy

A group that included past SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) national secretary Paul Booth, his activist wife, Heather Booth, onetime SDS field secretary Steve Max and radical community organizer Harry Boyte published a pamphlet titled Socialism and the Coming Decade. This creed said that because the U.S. had entered a “non-revolutionary period,” socialist activists should eschew confrontational tactics in favor of a stealth, incremental approach to social ...
Read More
Senator Jenner: "We have a well-organized political action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state."

Senator Jenner: “We have a well-organized political action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state.”

Senator William Jenner of Indiana says before the U.S. Senate: "Today the path to total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by Congress, the President, or the people. We have a well-organized political action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state. It has a foothold within our Government, and its ...
Read More
'Education for Destruction' is Published by Patriot Dr. Bessie Burchett, who Valiantly Fought the Communization of American Public Schools

‘Education for Destruction’ is Published by Patriot Dr. Bessie Burchett, who Valiantly Fought the Communization of American Public Schools

"EDUCATION FOR DESTRUCTION" was written by DR. B.R. BURCHETT and PUBLISHED by her in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1941. She gives us a first hand look at her battle with the beginnings of collectivism, removing God from school, and other agendas carried out by infiltrators of our education system. The promotional flyer for Dr. Burchett’s book read as follows: Arresting... Disturbing... Exciting NOW for the First Time—the ...
Read More
Maine Education Commissioner Dr. Augustus Thomas: "If There are Those who Think we are to Jump Immediately into a New World Order... They are Doomed to Disappointment."

Maine Education Commissioner Dr. Augustus Thomas: “If There are Those who Think we are to Jump Immediately into a New World Order… They are Doomed to Disappointment.”

THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR OF AUGUST 8, 1927 quoted from an address to the World Federation of Education Associations (WFEA) at their Toronto, Canada conference delivered by Dr. Augustus Thomas, commissioner of education for the state of Maine. Excerpts from Dr. Thomas’s revealing address follow: If there are those who think we are to jump immediately into a new world order, actuated by complete understanding and ...
Read More

Sanders, Bernie

(born Sept 8, 1941) A bum who didn’t earn a steady paycheck until he was 40 years old. He later wrote about crudities for left-wing rags for $50 a story, and then tried politics where he has served as U.S. Senator (D-VT) since 1991. Peter Schweizer’s book, Profile’s in Corruption, details how Bernie over the course of his 30-plus years in public office funneled huge sums of money ($83M via clandestine media-buying company) to his family. Sanders ran unsuccessfully for the 2016 Democratic nomination (stolen by Hillary) for president and is running again in 2020. He has denied ever being a member of the communist SWP, but The Washington Examiner found his ties to the party are “deep and enduring.” He took several “goodwill” trips not only to the USSR (where he took his 2nd wife on their honeymoon), but also to communist Cuba and Nicaragua where he spoke at the 7th anniversary of the violent Sandinista Revolution in 1985. He has amassed a $2.5+ million fortune (disclosed), but wants you to redistribute your wealth, if any, to bums like him until a capitalist free market (along with shady dealings) made him millions.

Read more