The Oxford Martin School: Oxford’s Socialist revolution

by Cassivellaunus, 15 August 2013

In popular perception Oxford is the very quintessence of tradition. The reality is that Oxford has long harboured a motley of subversive interests seeking to shape the nation’s future in line with their own agenda.

Balliol and New College were among the strongholds of the Milner (Round Table) Group from the late 1800s, while Corpus Christi and St John’s spawned leading Fabians like Sydney Olivier, Graham Wallas and Sidney Ball.

By 1895 the London Fabian Society had established a Fabian university society at Oxford which, according to the Society’s annual report, consisted of men who within a few years would occupy posts of influence and importance across the country (Cole, 1961, p. 63). Some of its members occupied such posts from the startone of its first presidents, “Socialist Don” Sidney Ball (originally from Oriel) was a dominant figure at St John’s. 

The common objective of these allied groups has been to push Britain, the Empire (later the Commonwealth) and the world in the direction of Socialist world government controlled by leaders of the world’s corporate community (the big international bankers, industrialists and businessmen). The Oxford Martin School (OMS) squarely belongs to this tradition.

The School was founded by the left-wing futurologist, writer and entrepreneur Dr James Martin, a graduate and honorary fellow of Keble College, Oxford, where he had attended the lectures of left-wing luminaries like Isaiah Berlin and Bertrand Russell (a former member of the Fabian Society) who left a deep impression on James’s young mind (Campbell-Kelly, 2013).

After national service, Dr Martin started his career at IBM, a Rockefeller-controlled, Rothschild-associated operation (N M Rothschild & Sons chairman Evelyn de Rothschild was a long-time director of IBM UK) where he worked as a computer scientist for almost twenty years (1959-1978). Interestingly, neither the OMS websitenor the James Martin website (last accessed 14 Aug. 2013) mention this “small detail” in the doctor’s life.

As his interest (or obsession) with the future grew, Dr Martin came to believe that “technocracy will replace aristocracy”: to solve the world’s problems, society must educate a generation of revolutionary technocrats who will lead mankind into a brighter future.

The personal fortune he had made from his computer books, lectures and business interests provided the means by which Dr Martin could make his dream come true and, in 2005, he founded the Oxford Martin School.

Dr Martin’s thinking was influenced not only by Isaiah Berlin and Bertrand Russell but also by left-wing billionaires Bill Gates and George Soros (Daily Telegraph, 27 Jun. 2013). The latter contributed to the School’s funding and heads the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) which is a member of the School.

Thanks to unusually strong financial backing – Dr Martin alone contributed $150 million – the School has grown into a massive operation with about 38 institutes and between 300 and 400 academics (depending on whether we take the figure provided by the School’s website or its director Ian Goldin) working across Oxford University. Unsurprisingly, its own architects describe the School and its impact on the University as a “Revolution in Oxford” (J. Martin, 2012). 

Left-wing academia and corporate Socialism

It is clear from the start that the Oxford Martin School is the product of a combination of left-wing ideology (or “new thinking” along Fabian Socialist lines) and international financial interests.

The idea of a body of technical “experts” heading a new international ruling class who would solve all the world’s problems is an enduring Socialist fantasy promoted in the works of Fabian writers like H G Wells (A Modern Utopia) and Aldous Huxley (Brave New World) and periodically cropping up in Fabian and related publications. It is an idea Socialists have shared with the leaders of the world’s corporate community (the Rothschilds, Rockefellers and others) who have used their vast financial resources to encourage a technocratic worldview in the ranks of the academic community (Berman, pp. 12 ff.).

Corporate links to Fabian Socialism were forged during the “Progressive Era” (1890s to 1920s), which was characterised by growing Socialist influence on society. The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), a university founded by the Fabian Society with money bequeathed to it for the express purpose of “furthering its propaganda, objects and Socialism” (Cole, 1949, p. 43), was one of the first, and most important, Socialist institutions to enjoy corporate backing. Lord Rothschild, Sir Ernest Cassel, Joseph Rowntree and other pillars of “capitalist” finance and industry were only too happy to fund England’s bastion of Socialism (see The Fabian Society).

Rockefeller institutions like the General Education and International Education Boards and the Rockefeller Foundation were set up during the same era and the Rockefellers became particularly close to the LSE and its brand of Socialism which visiting LSE professors propagated at Harvard, Columbia and other Rockefeller-funded American universities.

Indeed, corporate interest in Socialism went beyond funding socialist projects. Oil and banking magnate John D. Rockefeller Jr., for example, was not only a financial supporter but also a disciple of John Dewey, president of the League for Industrial Democracy (LID), formerly Intercollegiate Socialist Society, which had been created by the American Fabian League (R. Martin, p. 178) in parallel with the London Fabian Society’s University Socialist Federation.

J. D. R. Jr. founded the experimental Lincoln School of New York where he sent his sons to be indoctrinated in Deweyian thinking by teachers from the Rockefeller-funded and LID-dominated Teachers College, Columbia University.

As one might expect, the indoctrination did not fail to leave a lasting impression on the entire Rockefeller progeny and “Rockefeller Republicanism” soon became a byword for left-wing views. But it was David who, of all brothers, took the time to study Fabian Socialism and to obtain a BSc degree on a sympathetic thesis entitled “Destitution Through Fabian Eyes” (Harvard, 1936) in which he favourably compared Fabian Socialism with Christianity.

David also spent his second post-graduate year studying economics at the LSE under Fabian luminaries like Prof Harold Laski (later chairman of the Fabian Society and the Labour Party). In the following year, he characteristically invited Oskar Lange, a notorious Polish Socialist and leading advocate of “Market Socialism,” to join his thesis committee at the (Rockefeller co-founded) University of Chicago (Rockefeller, pp. 75, 82-3, 88). David Rockefeller is an honorary fellow of the LSE and member of Alumni and Friends of the LSE in the US (AFLSE).

On his part, George Soros, an immigrant from Hungary, obtained a PhD from the LSE where he studied under Karl Popper from whom he drew inspiration for his Open Society Foundations. Popper was an early proponent of the “Open-Society” theory, which was not only redolent of H. G. Wells’ Fabian “Open Conspiracy” but was nothing but Socialist globalism by another name. Soros has conveniently refused to define “open society,” merely describing it as a society in which a person like himself can “live and prosper” (Soros, 1995, p. 113). However, his criticism of capitalism and nationalism, insistence on constructing a collectively ruled “global open society” steered by elements like himself (see Soros, 2000) and long-time activism for Democratic and other left-wing causes, leave no doubt as to his true political allegiance.

What the above figures – Rockefeller, Soros, Dr Martin, OMS director Ian Goldinand associates – all have in common with Socialist thought is the quasi-religious (or pathological) belief in their personal mission to change the world, to bring about a “large-scale transformation of humanity” in fulfilment of their utopian fantasies.

In this unholy alliance of left-wing academia and corporate power the latter has the undisputed upper hand. As pointed out by the economist Joseph A Schumpeter (David Rockefeller’s tutor at Harvard), the true pacemakers of Socialism are not the intellectuals or agitators who preach it but “the Vanderbilts, Carnegies and Rockefellers” (Schumpeter, p. 134).

It is not difficult to see why this should be the case. Socialism is a system that requires vast amounts of funding to sustain its welfare and other utopian programmes that cannot all be sustained by taxes. This inevitably leads to mounting public borrowing, debt and dependence on lenders and donors who are thus placed in a position where they can dictate public policy and practice.

The above explains why Socialism is inextricably linked to monopolistic financial and industrial interests, a fact not generally recognised by the system’s rank and file but well understood by its more pragmatic (and better informed) leaders like Lord Mandelson and Tony Blair. Although routinely dubbed “capitalist” by outsiders and by those engaged in diversionary propaganda, these interests clearly are anti-capitalist by virtue of their monopolistic practices aiming to concentrate resources and power in the hands of a self-appointed corporate elite and their support for socialistic programmes aiming to “reform” or “transform,” i.e., subvert and ultimately destroy, traditional capitalist society  (see Socialism exposed).

In his book, The Meaning of the 21st CenturyA Vital Blueprint for Ensuring Our Future (2006), Dr Martin himself explains that multinational corporations are “the only human organisation capable of achieving the complex and difficult tasks that are ahead”, which is why they must play a greater role in the world’s affairs and in solving its problems (J. Martin, 2007, p. 292).

Needless to say, taking a greater role in world affairs is exactly what the international corporate community intends to do – and has been doing all along, with or without academic approval or consent. Dr Martin’s suggestion merely confirms that the left wings of the academic and corporate communities are of one mind. This mutually convenient arrangement ensures a guaranteed income for the former and greater power and influence for the latter – a genuinely vital blueprint for ensuring the future of both.

The close links, unity of ideology and collaboration between the Oxford Martin School and the corporate community are further exposed by the School’s director, Professor Ian Goldin, and its advisory council.

Prof Goldin is a South African of Austrian origin who holds a MSc from the London School of Economics as well as a fellowship at Balliol College, Oxford, and who, before joining the Oxford Martin School, served as vice-president of the World Bank (2003-2006) as well as head of the Bank’s collaboration with the United Nations.

Before that, Prof Goldin was principal economist at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), London, which was set up in 1991 by Jacques Attali, a long-time Rothschild associate, former adviser to France’s Socialist President François Mitterrand and himself a committed Marxist and advocate of world government.

From 1996 to 2001 Prof Goldin was chief executive and managing director of the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) during which time he served as adviser to President Nelson Mandela (a member of the South African Communist Party) and received the World Economic Forum’s ominously-named Global Leader of Tomorrow (GLT) Award along with Victor Chu (see below). Other recipients of the Award have included leading politicians like Tony Blair, Nicolas Sarkozy and José Manuel Barroso; Rothschild associates like Vincent Bolloré and Felix Rohatyn; directors of global banking giants like JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs and many other members of the world’s new ruling class.

The typical WEF member company is a global enterprise with more than $5 billion in turnover and WEF strategic partners (hand-picked for their alignment with the WEF agenda) include industrial and banking giants with Rockefeller connections like Saudi Aramco (originally a Rockefeller-Saudi joint venture), Chevron, JPMorganChase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and, in particular, the Rockefeller Foundation which has special status as strategic foundation partner

In addition to Prof Goldin, Oxford Martin School’s advisory council includes:

Victor Chu, chairman, First Eastern Investment Group, Hong Kong; member, foundation board, World Economic Forum (WEF) alongside Peter Sutherland, former director-general, World Trade Organisation, chairman and managing director, Goldman Sachs International (for Sutherland’s pro-immigrant stance see Sutherland, 15 June 2012 and similar publications); Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman, WEF, member, advisory board, Investcorp (a joint venture between the Rockefellers’ Chase Manhattan Bank and the Arab League’s Arab Monetary Fund); and Christine Lagarde, managing director, International Monetary Fund

Mo Ibrahim, founder, Mo Ibrahim Foundation, which promotes “good governance” (i.e., governance promoting the interests of left-wing international finance and its political collaborators) in Africa

Pascal Lamy, director general, World Trade Organisation; chair, Oxford Martin Commission for Future Generations (whose vice-chair is Ian Goldin)

Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, former managing director, World Bank; Minister of Finance, Nigeria – an oil-rich country with long-standing links to the Fabian Society and Rockefeller interests (Jonathan, 2013)

Zhou Qifeng, president, Peking University, Beijing

Amartya Sen, professor of economics, (Rockefeller-associated) Harvard University; trustee, Economists for Peace and Security (whose founding trustee Lawrence Klein was former president of the Fabian American Economic Association); husband of Emma Rothschild (daughter of Labour peer Lord Victor Rothschild and director of the Rockefeller-controlled United Nations Foundation)

Nicholas (Lord) Stern, professor of economics and government, LSE; chair, (Rothschild-associated) Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, LSE 

Joseph Stiglitz, former senior vice-president, World Bank; professor of international affairs, (Rockefeller-associated) Columbia University; collaborator of left-wing billionaire George Soros (who is a leading member and co-funder of Oxford Martin School); collaborator of left-wing economist Michael Rothschild; founder of the global think-tank Institute for Policy Dialogue (IPD), which is funded by the allied Rockefeller, Ford and MacArthur Foundations.

The OMS advisory council confirms the School’s strong links to the corporate community and its close-knit network of international organisations involved in global governance (United Nations, World Economic Forum, World Trade Organisation, World Bank, International Monetary Fund) as well as educational establishments, academic institutions and research centres (London School of Economics, Harvard University, Columbia University, Economists for Peace and Security, Institute for Policy Dialogue) promoting a left-wing corporate agenda.

A blueprint for the future?

As stated earlier, OMS academics, their collaborators and corporate paymasters believe themselves to be destined and entitled to shape the future of mankind in accordance with their own utopian fantasies. This belief is confirmed by the literature they have produced and by the organisations and other devices they have set up such as the Global Leader of Tomorrow Award, the Oxford Martin Commission for Future Generations, the Future of Humanity Institute (which is part of the OMS and headed by Swedish LSE graduate Nick Bostrom), etc.

In Prof Goldin’s own words, the School’s mission is to understand the most critical problems facing the world and to “make better futures for all of us” (Goldin, 2013). Thus, the School and those who run it indisputably see themselves as the makers of mankind’s future.

Prof Goldin has also spoken of global challenges that need global solutions, of the failure of global leaders to find such solutions and of the need to create new global governance structures to redress this failure (Goldin, 2011).

Prof Goldin does not make it sufficiently clear why the existing structures have failed or were allowed to fail and why he expects new structures to deliver better results. After all, earlier organisations tasked with global governance and “solving the world’s problems” (the League of Nations, the United Nations, etc.) were the creation of the same class of academic “experts” in collaboration with the same corporate community (the Rockefellers, etc.).

The economy and immigration are of central concern to Prof Goldin and his collaborators at the OMS. George Soros, whose Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) is a leading member of the School, has said that economic theory is in a crisis because its very foundations have proved to be inadequate; that this is “one of the most urgent and pressing issues for mankind”; and that he hopes that his Institute will “completely rethink economic theory” (J. Martin, 2012).

In other words, the economic theories promoted for nearly a century by Fabianeconomists like John Maynard Keynes and their corporate backers have been just old wives’ tales – not to say a collection of fraudulent propositions, designed to implement gradual state control of the economy.

In fact, the uselessness of economic theory has long been exposed by people who are in a position to know, such as Chancellor Denis Healey (Healey, pp. 377-83). And we are expected to believe that the world’s “experts” have only just discovered this and that they will now promptly devise “better” (read more radical) theories – which presumably will take another century or so to prove right or wrong, as the case may be.

Meanwhile, what the above professors and their corporate financiers all agree on, is that immigration is supposedly good for the economy. In fact, their publications list immigration among the critical problems facing the world. The thought that sustained mass immigration might lead to population replacement, ethnic cleansing or genocide does not seem to cross their mind even though official figures show that the replacement rate in the UK has already reached 20 per cent and is likely to reach over 50 per cent of the total population by the 2060s (Coleman, 2010Silverman, 2013).

Prof Goldin condescends to admit that immigration can produce social dislocation and discontent in the receiving population. He nevertheless insists that immigration makes the economy – and Oxford University – more “competitive” (Goldin, 2013). And what is good for Oxford and its foreign professors is good for the country and the world … 

Accordingly, Goldin deplores the fact that current immigration policies are made without consideration for the “long-term benefits of a coordinated global policy” (Goldin, 2011, p. 164). The man charged with co-ordinating global policy on immigration is none other than Peter Sutherland, head of the UN Global Forum on Migration and Development who took up his post at about the same time Prof Goldintook his and who is a member of the WEF foundation board which nominated Goldinfor its Global Leader of Tomorrow Award. 

How Goldin, Sutherland and associates intend to make a “better future” for us is suggested by their own statements. Mr Sutherland has infamously called on European Union governments to do their best to “undermine the national homogeneity” of European states and believes that the migration of hundreds of millions of Africans to Europe in search of work in the next few decades is “a good thing” (Sutherland, 15 and 20 June 2012; Wheeler, 2012).

On his part, Prof Goldin for whom immigration has been a “life-long passion” and who believes that open borders are “an ideal to work towards,” has announced that immigration will define our future and has called for more immigration. To say that the future of the British people should be defined by immigration, that is, by immigrants and not by the British people themselves, is a profoundly racist proposition. But there is worse to come. Prof Goldin firmly believes that the thought that we are pure-bred Europeans must be overcome and that we should all “think of ourselves as Africans” instead (Goldin, 2013).

This amounts to denying Europeans their right to lifeif a population is denied the right to define its own future, the right to its own territory and the right to its own cultural and ethnic identities, then it is denied the right to exist. The Oxford Martin School’s “blueprint for the future” can result in nothing less than the deliberate and systematic annihilation of Europe’s people, culture and civilisation.  

The School interlocks with organisations that have a direct influence on public policy-making. For example, the International Migration Institute (IMI), an OMS member institute, is involved in the work and analysis of the Migration Observatory, Oxford, whose director Dr Martin Ruhs – like Goldin and associates – believes that immigration is “good for the economy” and has served as adviser to a string of pro-immigrant bodies like the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), the Global Commission on International Migration (GCIM) and the UN Development Programme (UNDP), and is a member of the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) which was set up by the Labouradministration in 2007 and continues to advise the Government on immigration issues.

Soros, Goldin, LSE chairman Sutherland and fellow travellers themselves are board members at the influential left-wing journal Global Policy, a partner of the LSE Public Policy Group (PPG) which works closely with Enterprise LSE and LSE Research and Contracts Office, who are respectively responsible for undertaking project management and contract negotiations for all PPG activities and handling grant-funded research.

Global Policy’s general editor is David Held, former Graham Wallas professor of political science (named after the Fabian Society leader and first professor of political science) and co-director of the Centre for the Study of Global Governance, LSE.

Global Policy’s editorial statement (last accessed 15 Aug 2013) predicts that the journal will be invaluable to those working in economics, global politics, government and other disciplines involved in developing global policy. Given the financial, academic and political heavyweights involved, it is a prediction that comes close to a statement of fact.

What becomes clear is that the Oxford Martin School is an integral part of the global Fabian-LSE network of policy-planning and opinion-forming organisations, which is an extension of the international corporate community. And this means that we can safely expect it to operate within guidelines set by its corporate patrons and serving their interests – which is precisely why the likes of George Soros are funding it. 

Soros’s newly-discovered image of selfless Oxford scientist and benefactor who is worried over the state of the world’s economy should not deflect attention from the man behind the façade. Given his more colourful past as long-time Rothschild agent, ruthless speculator and gold market manipulator who reportedly “broke the Bank of England” and was involved in a “plot to cash in on the fall of the euro” by placing large bets against the currency (Litterick, 2002; West, 2010), this may prove to be a case of poacher turned gamekeeper.

Together with Prof Goldin’s apparent lack of concern for the fate of Britain’s (and Europe’s) indigenous population, it casts serious doubts on the legitimacy and moral propriety of the whole Martin School project. At any rate, the School’s technocratically and plutocratically manufactured “blueprint for the future” has no place in democratic society. It must not be allowed to become reality.

(This article was last updated on 18 August 2013)

See also:

The Migration Observatory

The Fabian Society

Nelson Mandela: “President of the World” or “murderous terrorist”?

Berman, Edward H., The Influence of the Carnegie, Ford and Rockefeller Foundations on American Foreign Policy: The Ideology of Philanthropy, Albany, NY, 1983.

Campbell-Kelly, Martin, “James Martin obituary,” Guardian, 28 Jun. 2013.

Cole, Margaret Isobel (ed), The Webbs and Their Work, London, 1949, quoted in Pugh, Patricia, Educate, Agitate, Organize: 100 Years of Fabian Socialism, London, 1984, p. 54.

Cole, Margaret, The Story of Fabian Socialism, London, 1961.

Coleman, David, “When Britain becomes “majority minority””, Prospect, 17 Nov. 2010.

Daily Telegraph, “James Martin Obituary,” 27 Jun. 2013.

Goldin, Ian, Exceptional People: How Migration Shaped Our World and Will Define Our Future, Woodstock, Oxfordshire, 2011.

Goldin, Ian, “What if rich countries shut the door on immigration?,” World Economic Forum Blog, 21 Sept. 2012.

Goldin, Ian, “Exceptional People: How Migration Shaped Our World and Will Define Our Future,” Prof Ian Goldin, Director, Oxford Martin School, talks to Hein de Haas, Co-Director, International Migration Institute, May 2013, webcast on

Healey, Denis, The Time of My Life, 1989, reprinted London, 2006.

Jonathan, Goodluck, “Nigeria: Rockefeller Foundation summit on realizing the potential of African agriculture,” Indepth Africa, 9 Jul. 2013; for Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie links to Nigeria and other African countries see also Berman, pp. 74-6.

Litterick, David, “Billionaire who broke the Bank of England,” Daily Telegraph, 13 Sept. 2002.

Martin, James, The Meaning of the 21st Century: A Vital Blueprint for Ensuring Our Future, 2006, revised edition, New York, NY, 2007.

Martin, James, director and producer, Revolution in Oxford, short propaganda film, June 2012 download MP4 (170 MB).

Martin, Rose, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A., Chicago, IL, 1966.

Rockefeller, David, Memoirs, New York, NY, 2002.

Schumpeter, Joseph A., Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 1942, 3rd edn., New York, NY, 1950.

Silverman, Rosa, “White Britons ‘will be minority’ by 2066, says professor,” Daily Telegraph, 2 May 2013.

Soros, George, Soros on Soros: Staying Ahead of the Curve, Hoboken, NJ, 1995.

Soros, George, Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism, London, 2000.

Sutherland, Peter, “A Constructive Attitude to Migration is a Moral Issue,” Address to the International Eucharistic Congress, Dublin, 15 Jun. 2012.

Sutherland, Peter in Select Committee on the European Union, House of Lords, “Inquiry on Global Approach to Migration and Mobility, Evidence Session No. 1, Wednesday 20 June 2012, 11.25 am, Witness: Mr Peter Sutherland, QQ 1-34”, uncorrected transcript, published 22 June 2012.

West, Karl, “Man who broke the Bank of England, George Soros, ‘at centre of hedge funds plot to cash in on the fall of the euro,’” Daily Mail, 27 Feb 2010.

Wheeler, Brian, “EU should ‘undermine national homogeneity’ says UN migration chief,” BBC News, 21 Jun. 2012.

Published by Graham Moore

I believe in Liberty, Freedom and fairness for all. Sick of political correctness and mind and thought control. The Rule of Law, Common Law.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: