|
"Who
controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the
past". George Orwell.
Introduction
In
this, the third part in the series, `To Kill A Tree,` we will take a closer look at how through various means and methods, the Illuminati
are, in parallel with their depopulation agenda, working towards the deconstruction
of the nation states of the West, by disconnecting people from their roots,
and diluting the ethnic makeup of countries through mass immigration, thereby
weakening the resolve of populations to oppose the trend towards
internationalism. We will also examine how the Illuminists and their Marxist,
humanist, socialist `lackeys,` have worked towards breaking down Western
civilisation and tradition, by the rewriting of history and the defamation of
national heroes.
Immigration
To
challenge the concept that large scale immigration is beneficial to the West
is to risk being labelled racist, even though the proof is clearly `in the
pudding` as it were. In his book, `Do We Need Mass Immigration,` the British
author Anthony Browne writes:
"
Immigration at current levels is turning Britain into a country very
ill-at-ease with itself. It imports poverty, increases social tensions,
crime, public health problems such as TB, and creates parallel
communities."
Large
scale immigration from the `Third World` is one of the key tools being used
by the Illuminati in order to break down resistance to their plans for a One
World State.
Immigration
on the scale we are now witnessing calls into question the very future and
character of the nations that our children will inherit, if indeed, with the
relentless drive towards the Federal European State and plans for a North
America Union moving forward apace, there will be any such entities left to
inherit. Massive immigration from the `developing` world is now adversely
affecting all the countries of the West.
Within
the European Union, the governing elites in Brussels continue to present the
member states as little more than a collection of minorities, 'multicultural
societies' in which national characteristics are of no greater value or
significance than those of any other culture. Furthermore, they clearly
believe, and the evidence is supportive, that large scale immigration assists
them in achieving their defined goal of a Pan European Superstate, within
which any nationalism or patriotism would not only be frowned upon, but
outlawed under the auspices of xenophobia.
But
their premise is wrong. The UK for instance is not a multicultural society. A
mere eight per cent of the population are from an ethnic minority, and even
then a number of those are Christians. Nor is it a country of immigrants.
Until the 1950s, there had been no large-scale immigration since the Norman
Conquest over a 1000 years before. The notion that the UK is a `mongrel
nation` is erroneous. Britain is a country with a distinctive and ancient
identity and culture founded upon a dominant religion, Christianity, to which
most of its citizens still feel at least a nominal attachment.
Denying
the Culture
Immigrants,
if they are to lead full and rewarding lives, need to become part of the
culture and society of their new home. They need to be able to identify with
it's history and traditions. Those who went to Britain early in the last
century did so, because they valued and admired the countrys national
characteristics of fair play, tolerance, and emotional restraint. Without
sacrificing their own culture, they adopted British values by learning about
Shakespeare, Austen, the Bronte Sisters and Dickens, and by studying the history
of parliamentary democracy and the growth of British institutions. But the
point I am making here is that these things were actually taught. People were
imbued with British values because the British themselves were proud of their
nation, identity and culture, and they believed in transmitting what Britain
stood for to all the nation's citizens and their children.
But
this is no longer the case. These things are no longer being taught. For many
decades now, the Marxist controlled UK education system, through it's schools
and universities has been doing its best instead to destroy all semblances of
national pride. The very idea that a national identity should be transmitted
is considered racist, imperialist and exclusionary. The great works of
English literature are replaced by books considered to be more 'relevant' to
a child's own cultural and ethnic background. British political history has
become `persona non grata,` so children are given no sense of any
chronological national story to make sense of the society they inhabit.
On
the front line of the culture war now raging, and amongst its ideologically
driven `foot soldiers,` this fallacious dogma is derived largely from a
perhaps well intended, but misplaced excess of tact towards minorities, along
with an indoctrinated guilt complex over the British Empire, even though if
the history of that Empire was taught properly, it would necessarily include
the oft valiant story of the many immigrant groups that fought heroically for
Britain. But in truth, at it's core, there lies a desire to create an
entirely new kind of society by destroying the old one. That means, among
other things, repudiating and denying openly and publicly, loudly and often,
the Christian basis of British culture. Thus, in the UK, a recent report by
the Institute for Public Policy Research on the teaching of religion in
schools, concluded that there was a need to teach a 'diversity of identities'
to equip children for life in a 'multicultural society'. Accordingly, it
directs teachers to encourage children to question the faith they inherit
from their families, and to regard the moral teachings of religion with
suspicion, if not outright hostility. Under the cover of promoting
'diversity,' this is actually a menu for subversion, explicitly aiming to
undermine the family and the moral and religious basis of the nation,
severing children from parents and tradition.
Cambridge
university amongst others, has banned Christian prayers at graduation
ceremonies in order to avoid causing any offence to other religions and
atheists, and to avoid legal action under race or religious discrimination
laws. Thus we see a national culture, redefined as being intrinsically racist
or discriminatory. Because it is embarrassed by its own culture, Britain
refuses to defend it in the same way other nations, like the Dutch or the
Danes, for example, have done with theirs. The Dutch have recently expelled
large numbers of failed asylum-seekers, and Denmark has severely tightened
it's policy on immigration, to the point where it struggles to work within
the confines of EU legislation.
These
small countries have belatedly realised, that multiculturalism poses a `clear
and present` danger to their culture and identity which they are neither
prepared or able to tolerate, and still remain distinct national entities.
The Dutch say that their 30-year experiment in multiculturalism has resulted
in sink schools, violence, and ethnic ghettos.
Most
immigrants are hard-working, honest people, looking to make a good life for
themselves and their families, and they bring with them many other admirable
ethnic and national characteristics which in time, providing the numbers
entering are capable of being assimilated, can add to and enrich the
indigenous culture. But if their numbers are too numerous, or if they don't
wish to integrate, it then becomes impossible for the indigenous culture to
absorb them. If there simply aren't enough people who can identify with the
country's history, then it cannot be taught. And since any nation is rooted
in its history, the national identity unravels. Being ashamed of our
country's past, no longer becomes a question of any relevance, as there is no
longer a sense of any collective 'we'.
In
his `Civitas` pamphlet 'The Need for Nations,` Roger Scruton insists this
situation places democracy itself in mortal danger. He suggests that without
national loyalty, there can be no common ground. A democracy works only if
its members think of themselves as 'we'. If there is only 'them,' people no
longer acknowledge the validity of the laws that bind them, and are no longer
prepared to make sacrifices or die for a country inhabited by people they
don't know or trust. The result is that democracy withers, and social
disintegration follows.
David
Goodhart, editor of the liberal magazine Prospect, makes a similar point. He
says:
"We
are linked by a set of common values and assumptions. But as Britain becomes
more diverse, that common culture becomes eroded. And if we feel we no longer
have anything in common with our fellow citizens, we will no longer be
prepared to pay for common welfare provision".
Following
his considered and thoughtful discussion of an important issue of national
significance, Mr Goodhart found himself in the `gun sights` of no less a
`grandee,` than the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, who
labelled him a racist, and likened him to Enoch Powell and the British
National Party. It is sometimes difficult to grasp how on earth have we
reached the point, where a clearly decent man is smeared a racist simply for
wishing to preserve his national identity? Why is Britain so much less
attached to its own culture and traditions than the Dutch and the Danes, who
have achieved far less, or other Europeans like the French who have their own
colonial history to contend with? And why has education unraveled the culture
in Britain to an extent not seen elsewhere?
Home
To Roost
The
prime suspects in this sorry saga are the radicalised, `baby-boomers` of the
sixties and seventies, who having been indoctrinated with the insidious
ideologies of Cultural Marxism in university, set out to infiltrate and
destabilise western society. They had much less impact in Europe, where
institutions remained robust enough to mount a solid defence, and language
provided a bulwark against the `new` ideas coming across the Atlantic from
America. Schools still transmitted their traditional values, the family held
up, and the churches were strong. In Britain, however, these institutions simply
collapsed. The welfare state, in promoting a culture of rights, had eroded
responsibility and duty and encouraged instead a culture of narcissism. This
created fertile ground for the cult of personal choice promoted by the
radicals.
In
addition, the shared language and close cultural ties with America made
Britain particularly susceptible to the Neo Marxist programmes of
child-centered education, extreme feminism and minority 'victim' rights
coming across the `pond.` In Britain, a State monopoly over schools and
universities meant there was no challenge to these ideas, which aimed to
disconnect citizens from the traditions and established values of the nation.
When faced with this rout, the established church merely wrung its hands and
screamed, "No Mas," then dutifully followed suit. As a result, the
three pillars of national identity; family, education and church crumbled.
Internationalism
Britain
and the other English speaking nations may be in the vanguard of this
process, but it is part of a global trend, carefully planned and orchestrated
by the `Hidden Power.` The immigration issue is only the most visible symptom
of the ailment afflicting Western Civilisation, which now finds itself at a
most perilous juncture in it's history. The idea that a people's principal
duties are to family, community and nation is being challenged at every turn
by a new vision in which people are expected to feel a form of `global
responsibility.` In this new trans-national order, the powers of individual nations
are being progressively transferred to institutions that cross national
boundaries. The European Union, the United Nations, the World Trade
Organisation and the proposed NAU will increasingly impose laws and
obligations on once proud sovereign nations where they are not accountable to
the people. Much of this energy is being provided by insider human rights
activists promoting 'international law,' which has no democratic legitimacy
but is increasingly being used to bring democracies to heel. Bit by bit as
the nation state is superseded, democracy is being eroded. The ultimate goal,
a One World State.
It
is no accident that the trend towards trans-nationalism has been accelerating
ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It is nothing less than the
`Neo-Communist` means by which Western Civilisation is systematically
destabilised. There has been a counter reaction against this trend, mostly by
small countries, such as the Denmark and Holland, who have adopted what can
only be termed a `siege mentality,` as the world at large closes in around
them, and waves of immigrants breach the walls of their once homogeneous
citadels. In the US, the `war` rages between rival camps supporting either
trans-nationalism or democracy. Amazingly, the British haven't even grasped
there is a battle to be fought. According to Philosopher Roger Scruton, the
British are sleep walking into the likely to be European Federal State
"in which national loyalty will be no more significant than support for
a local football team." The outcome, he says, will be despotism and
anarchy.
We
can see the writing on the wall already. In 1996, Greenwich council in
London, produced a report in response to the murders of Stephen Lawrence and
two other local black boys. One of the principal reasons for the murderous
rage of white youths, it said, was that they had no national identity to be
proud of and to give their lives meaning. White children, in the UK, it said,
'seem like cultural ghosts, haunting as mere absences the richly decorated
corridors of multicultural society.'
In
her article, `Britains' Social Suicide,` the journalist Melanie Phillips
writes: "People may also have several identities, like Russian dolls
stacked inside each other. But ultimately, they have to have common bonds;
and these depend on a common culture, which requires controlled
migration."
Reconstructing
the Past
"History
is the lie commonly agreed upon." Voltaire.
To
sever a people's roots, it is necessary to destroy it's memory. By denying a
people true knowledge of who they are and where they came from, and those
aspects of their history and tradition which defines them as a separate
identifiable nation, with a common language, common faith and common mission,
it is possible to create a sense of hopelessness and futility, which in time
will eventually kill the collective psyche and love of country and enable
that once distinct people to be swallowed up by any would be Supranational
state.
George
Orwell in his book `1984,` argued that by destroying the record of a people's
past, thereby leaving it ignorant of it's forbears and their achievements,
one can fill the vacuum with a brand new history. The primary weapon devised
to create the academic circumstances needed to implement the pernicious and
destructive agenda to achieve such a condition is a little something known as
`Critical Theory.` Developed by the Marxist `thinkers` of the Frankfurt
School, (see reference section) Critical Theory has been defined as the
"essentially destructive criticism of all the main elements of Western
culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family,
patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty,
patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism."
Raehn.
In
practice, Critical Theory works like this; The Marxist repeats the charge
that the West is responsible for injuring and harming every civilisation and
culture it has come into contact with. That Western Societies are
intrinsically racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-semitic and
fascist. The almost universal use of this method of cultural degradation
since the sixties, has induced a form of `collective pessimism` throughout
Western nations. This manifests itself, particularly in the young, as a sense
of alienation from the native culture, of hopelessness and despair, where a
people come to view their own land as oppressive, evil and unworthy of
loyalty.
Critical
Theory does to nations what `attack politics` does to opposing candidates in
elections, only on a much larger and more destructive scale. Pat Buchanan in
his book, `Death Of The West,` calls it "The moral equivalent of
vandalising graves and desecrating corpses."
Can
anyone reading this article argue that to date, the `agents of change` by the
use of this cultural weapon, have been diabolically successful in their
systematic application of Critical Theory towards achieving their nefarious
ends?
Out
With The Old, In With The New
Not
so long ago, our children were taught the names of the great heroes of
Western History. In the UK, amongst many others, it was Nelson, Wellington
and Churchill, whilst children in the US learned about the exploits of
Columbus, Washington, and Jefferson. National holidays and public buildings were
named after them. But those days are gone forever, or so it seems. State
schools were once proud national institutions where our children were taught
how to be good citizens, patriots even. In his book, `The Disuniting Of
America,` Arthur Schlesinger writes:
"The
first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books,
its culture, its history. Then have someone write new books, manufacture a
new culture, invent a new history. Before long, the nation will begin to
forget what it is and what it was."
Since
the 1960's, Christianity has been removed from the classroom. The old books
by the great writers are gone and new more `relevant` politically correct
titles put in their place. The stories of our national heroes are no longer
taught in schools, and are noticeably absent from schoolbooks, and have been
largely forgotten, except by those of fifty years and upwards who still
remember different times. Public buildings and holidays have been given new
names, the achievements of our forebears slandered, and our people made to
feel embarrassed for a supposedly evil and malevolent past.
The
degradation and dethroning of past heroes appears to be pandemic throughout
the great nations of the developed world. In the US, amongst a very long list
of similar measures taken by the `thought police,` George Washington day has
been replaced by `Presidents Day` and in Richmond Virginia, General Robert E.
Lee's portrait was removed from a public display and then vandalised. In the
UK, former Mayor of London `Red` Ken Livingstone spent much of his two terms
in office, albeit unsuccessfully, plotting the destruction of statues
honouring the `Great men` of Empire, such as Admiral Sir Charles Napier, Sir
Henry Havelock and most notably, Maj. Gen. Charles Gordon, the man who played
such a large part in ending the slave trade. In France, plans to celebrate
the baptism of Clovis, the fifth century King of the Franks, were `scuppered`
by Marxists who bitterly resented any commemoration of the year France became
a Christian nation.
In
the `Death of The West, Patrick Buchanan reviews how successful the agents of
change have been in reshaping the way Americans view their country. In the
1950's around 89% of American men and 94% of American women believed their
country to be the finest on earth. In a poll conducted in 2000, only 58% of
American men and 51% of American women felt that way. I am well aware that my
own countrymen and women are in the main deeply demoralised by what is left
of Tony Blair's superficially manufactured `Cool Britannia,` and across
Europe, it seems paradoxically, that it is only the Danes who espouse any
sense of satisfaction and contentment with their nation, and as I have
written at length previously, there is much more to that than meets the eye
(see reference section).
The
Change Agents
In
the UK, there has been a collective `swoon` over the election of Barrack
Obama. Media superlatives have exhausted the full lexicon of cliches.
Journalists, grown men amongst them, wept with joy over his acceptance
speech. There's been nothing like it seen in the `old country` since
Britain's former prime minister, Tony Blair was elected back in 1997.
Like
Obama, Blair took Britain by storm when he won the first of his three general
elections in 1997 and threw the Conservative party a `curve ball` it's still
trying to catch. Like Obama, Blair was charismatic, eloquent, cool, and laid
back. Like Obama, Blair was seen as a saviour figure, who would lay his hands
upon a tired and broken nation and bring healing where there was discord. And
like Obama, Blair also had an agenda of change, which unknown to all but the
conspiratorial `inner sanctum,` was ready and prepared for him come election
day by his Illuminati puppet masters.
Tony
Blair was widely considered, by a politically inept and ignorant public, to
be something of a conservative in comparison with other Labour Party
Ministers. Indeed, it could be said that he came to power because he
symbolically threw off the partys commitment to state-control socialism, thus
establishing his credentials as a centrist. What few realized at the time was
that in fact he was a radical of a different kind. Throughout his term in
office, he would follow an agenda to remake Britain according to the
`Illuminists` strategy, as outlined to him at the Bilderberg meeting which he
had attended the year prior to his election. A strategy to guide Britain
towards full absorption into the European Superstate and change forever the
very nature of the British national character. The public facade; the `drama`
to be played out before the masses, was to create a more inclusive, kind and
just society, ostensibly by eradicating prejudice, reshaping the country in
his own image, whilst in reality, he worked tirelessly and treacherously
towards the ushering in of a New World Order.
Accordingly,
`his` government either directly promoted or did nothing to stop the long
march through Britain's institutions, the systematic undermining of the
country's fundamental values and traditions, in line with the `Cultural
Marxism` strategy of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci. It tore up
Britain's (unwritten) constitution, devolved power to Scotland and Wales, and
changed the composition of the the House of Lords, thereby destroying the
delicate equilibrium of the balance of power.
It
also set about changing the identity of the country. Promoting the doctrine
of multiculturalism, it opened Britain's doors to mass immigration. In the
state-controlled schools, teachers no longer saw their role as the
transmission of Britain's historic culture, which was deemed `racist`;
accordingly, children were no longer taught the history of their country, but
instead a concept of 'citizenship' which was all about changing the values of
the country. It undermined marriage, promoting instead `lifestyle choice` by
giving incentives to single mothers and morally legitimizing single
parenthood.
Barrack
Obama has spoken about remedying what he sees as those failings in the U.S.
Constitution which promote only `negative liberties,` or put another way,
freedom from something, rather than having positive rights to something.
Through it's adoption of human-rights legislation, Britain has exchanged its
historic concept of `negative" liberty,` that everything is permitted
unless it is actively prohibited, for the 'positive' European idea that only
what is codified is to be permitted. As a result, freedom has shrunk to what
ideology permits.
Equality
legislation has created a `victim culture` under which the interests of all
groups deemed to be powerless (minorities, women, homosexuals etc.) take
precedence over those deemed to be powerful (white Christian men). Since this
doctrine holds that the `powerless` can do no wrong while the `powerful` can do
no right, injustice is thus institutionalized, and anyone who queries the
preferential treatment afforded such groups finds his or herself vilified as
being a racist or a bigot, or both.
All
this constitutes a fundamentally illiberal culture in which dissent is
disallowed, and where divide and rule and intellectual intimidation become
the order of the day. In the US, not surprisingly, this also happens to be
the culture of ACORN, one of the radical groups funded by the Annenberg
Challenge and Woods Fund, and the 'educational' or criminal justice ideas of
William Ayers, naturally endorsed by President Barrack Obama.
In
the same way that British `Liberals and Fabians promote the `powerless` as
being incapable of doing wrong at home, they do likewise with regards to the
third world. These self appointed agents of change recognize Obama as one of
their own. That is because Britains Fabian intelligentsia and political class
has `signed up` to `transnational progressivism` which holds that the nation
state is the source of all the ills in the world because it is inherently
fascist and racist (for an in depth study of the source of this nonsense,
read `The Authoritarian Personality` by Theodore Adorno). Obama believes
America has its own sins to expiate, and Britain's treacherous
internationalist political class likes the sound of that. It wants and needs
America to be humbled. The message they want to promulgate is that nations
cause wars, and that the sooner we get a World Government, the better!
By
contrast transnational institutions such as the sacred UN or EU, are held to
promote civilised `engagement` with an enemy, to discuss grievances and then
reach compromises (Hegelianism). Of course transnational progressivism,
multiculturalism, victim culture, pacifism and all the rest of it amount to
little more than cultural and national suicide. The reason Britain has
embraced these dogmas is because, since the end of WWII, and the ostensible
loss of Empire, it has lost belief in itself as a nation and so has been
systematically deconstructing its values and breaking down its own defences.
In
recent years, because of what they see as the terminal decline in their
nation, hundreds of thousands of Britons have moved to live overseas, whilst
millions at home are in a state of desperation, and appalled by the implosion
of British culture, identity, and values. But they find themselves
politically impotent, in part because the Conservative party will not accept
or acknowledge that British values are under attack. It should be said that
true Conservative Republicans, as opposed to the `Neo Cons` in America should
take careful note of this in order to recognize a similar danger and dilemma
facing them following their defeat.
In
Britain, Conservatives believe that in order to regain power, they have to
show the people that they have broken with cultural conservatism and move
with the `flow` instead, adapting their policies to the changes in society
with regard to such issues as gay rights, green politics, anti-racism,
whatever. What they have failed to understand is that such change has turned
values such as right and wrong, good and bad on their heads and has produced
a sentimentalist, cruel, oppressive and perverse society, one where burglars
go unpunished, but householders are prosecuted for putting the wrong kind of
garbage in the trash can, and where people are too frightened to protest at
the erosion of British, Christian, or Western values because of the
inevitable and virulent verbal or written slander that will follow.
True
Conservatives whether in America, Britain or elsewhere in the West seem to
have abandoned their own cause, `given up the ghost` and capitulated. They
just don't seem to realise that by embracing `change,` they are furthering
the severing of national roots, and endorsing a form of enslavement. They
don't appreciate or grasp that as Conservatives, their primary duty is to
conserve national culture, values and traditions and protect them against
attack. The result has been that millions feel betrayed and abandoned by the
absence of conservatism, and many now see the Conservative parties as nothing
more, than a bunch of unprincipled opportunists. The challenge for
conservatives on both sides of the pond and elsewhere, is to find a way of
conserving the essential values of Western Civilization and then defend them
against the onslaught being mounted against them both from within and from
without. Unless they take up the gauntlet which has been thrown down and
soon, there will be nothing left to conserve.
"Those
who expect to be ignorant and free expect what never was and never will
be."
Thomas
Jefferson
References
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVHV49xFdhM
Must See Video 3 Mins.
`The
Death Of The West` by Patrick J. Buchanan.
`Do
We Need Mass Immigration` by Anthony Browne
`Britain'
Social Suicide` by Melanie Phillips
http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_882.shtml
Frankfurt School
http://www.nylonmanden.dk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=159&Itemid=43
http://www.nylonmanden.dk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=136&Itemid=43
|
No comments:
Post a Comment