The New Feudalists - The EU Communitarian Agenda.

By Philip Jones 24th September 2009.

“Communitarianism is a collectivist philosophy that explicitly rejects individualism. It does not merely relegate individualism to a subordinate position, but is openly hostile to it. It is an ideology of 'civic society' which is nothing less than one version of Post-Marxist collectivism which wants privileges for certain wealthy and influential organized groups, and in consequence, a renewed feudalising of society." Vaclav Klaus.

Introduction.

This article was originally posted in October of last year. With the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty only a week or so away, I felt it timely to repost in order that the people of Europe and the Irish in particular understand that what is at stake is nothing less than the choice between freedom and slavery!Communitarianist Ideology.

The European Union is a major aspect of the `New World Order` and the so called `sustainable development` movement. The main objective of the Federal European State to be, is absolute social, personal and economic control in a collectivist and corporatist society. The philosophy behind the EU is a strange mixture of Capitalism and Communism - a form of Euro Marxism which owes much of its dogma to the Pre World War II Italian Marxist Philosopher, Antonio Gramsci.. The nearest ideology to that practiced by the EU is something called `Communitarianism`, or what Tony Blair called the 'Third Way'..

We are talking of a dialectical trap here, with Corporate money funding Socialism as Thesis, ideological Socialism as Antithesis and Communitarianism or the `New Imperium` as Synthesis. Money grabs and concentrates power, whilst State Socialism promises the total redistribution of ownership and wealth. This contradiction provides an almost irresistible dynamic.

Communitarians want to create a post-modern, post-democratic feudal society run by a small number of rich and powerful people with everyone else working as peasants. In order to achieve their objectives they must destroy the middle class and the nation state. Can anyone deny that their goals are firmly on course.

One of the most mysterious aspects of the European Union from a `lay-man’s` standpoint is the decision making process. Even with only the bare minimum of research, it becomes clear that we the people have little or no influence on any of the decisions reached in our name and the subsequent diktats which inevitably follow. In this article/essay, I will try and identify the ideology and aims of the key socio- economic decisions that drive the EU, and how because of these decisions, our lives are increasingly no longer our own.

The socio political economic agenda of the EU is carefully and intentionally buried beneath myriad layers of tedious and unintelligible `newspeak`. Despite this, in recent years, as the pace of so called EU 'reform' has quickened, many researchers like myself have begun to expose and unravel this intentionally obtuse and often ambiguous jargon and reveal it for what it really is; A tool of confusion and misinformation intended towards the enslavement of the peoples of Europe by the rule of diktat and economic servitude..

Once the spotlight of investigation is shone directly at `the beast`, what emerges is a Communitarian Agenda driven solely by corporate interests. Monetary Profit is to be the `bottom line` on everything from public services to defence to the very useful environmental `Trojan Horse`. High sounding `non descriptions` precede cleverly worded specifics that determine that the one and only benchmark be an economic one.

The truth is of course that if the people of Europe themselves were to engage in setting the EU agenda, the current programme would almost without question be reversed. Instead of the `Mammonistic` ideal of profit before all, we would most certainly witness an agenda dominated by life quality issues like real un-politicised education for our children, and a healthcare service not tied to the pharmaceutical conglomerates, and free of political restraint, with a remit to provide the very best treatment available, whether it be of the traditional or alternative varieties.

The Roots And Goals Of The New Feudalism.

Anarchists would probably say that the basis of the EU agenda rests squarely with the ruling classes, but although in actuality correct, sooner than leave it at that, it is useful to unravel the `ball of string` by which the `Union’s` decisions are formulated, created , morphed into diktat and then monitored. For what appears from beneath the shroud are the most corrupting and powerful corporations in Europe. `Greed` entities with no pretense of any mandate beyond their combined annual turnover of €950 million and the fact they employ only around four million workers on a Continent inhabited by almost 500 million people.

Much of the ideological base for the EU Agenda can be found in the works of Count Count R. N. Coudenhove-Kalergi (Pic.above) who is justifiably regarded by many as the `God-father` of the European Union. It was his suggestion that Beethoven's hymn be the EU's Anthem, and he was extremely active in connection with the design of the EU logo. It was Coudenhove who founded the Pan European Union in the early part of the 20th century. It is interesting to note that his successor in the movement was Otto Von Hapsburg, an honorary professor of the University of Jerusalem, and recipient of the 'International Humanitarian Award', of the 'Anti Defamation-League' (ADL) of the Jewish B’nai B’rith Masonry Lodge. Coudenhove Kalergi's father was a close friend of Theodor Herzle the founder of Zionism.

Coudenhove’s vision for Europe was of a vast feudal fiefdom, where a small group of Money Aristocrats ruled a population of Serfs through a plutocratic {plutocratic = rule or power through wealth} false democratism which we see today holds thrall over the whole of the continent. His vision was shared, funded and sponsored by the `bloodline` and moneyed families of both Europe (Rothschild’s) and the USA(Rockefellers). In fact, since the end of WWII, the major dynamic behind the Federalist vision has come not from the European side, but from the Eastern Seaboard `establishment` families such as the Rockefeller's, Harriman's, Morgan’s, Dulles’ and Bush’s.

Theater For The Masses.

“The plan, I think, is the old one of world dominion in a new form . . . the money-power and revolutionary power have been set up and given sham but symbolic shapes ('Capitalism" or "Communism') and sharply defined citadels ('America' or "Russia') . . . Such is the spectacle publicly staged for the masses. But what if similar men, with a common aim, secretly rule in both camps and propose to achieve their ambition through the clash between those masses? I believe any diligent student of our times will discover that this is the case."-- Douglas Reed

This theatrical struggle between Capitalism and Communism over the inheritance of their `bloodline` aristocracy is a fratricidal war of the `blood` aristocracies a fight between individualistic and socialist, egoist and altruist, heathen and Christian ideals. The `Generals` in this make believe battle of both parties are recruited from Europe's Secret Societies and Brotherhoods, who can all be canopied beneath the metaphorical tarpaulin of the Illuminati.

Both Capitalism and Communism are rational, mechanical constructs. The time of the Old Military Caste nobility has passed. The effect of the `synthesis`, and it’s power, namely the belief in it, along with the hope that it’s time is nearing, is now growing exponentially, and with it the audacity and arrogance of the `New` Aristocracy. Through their puppet politicians sitting furtively in National Parliaments, The Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations and the plethora of other `front` organisations, their European `Project` appears close to becoming a reality, a first step along the road to the New World Order.

At the fourth annual conference of the Institute for the Scientific Study of International Relations at Copenhagen in June 1931 which was published in the magazine of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in December of that year, the following Statement was read out:

“We are at present working discreetly but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And all the time we aredenying with our lips what we are doing with our hands, because to impugn the sovereignty of the local national states of the world is still a heresy for which a statesman or a publicist can be, perhaps not quite burnt at the stake, but certainly ostracized and Discredited.”

The Methodology of Communitarianist Fascism.

The EU project has up until recently been subtle in the extreme. Step by laborious step, one treaty after the other, they have hidden their true intentions behind an economic smokescreen, aided by a population who have abdicated responsibility for the decision making in their lives to liars, cheats and degenerates who whilst masquerading as elected representatives of the people, have conspired to disenfranchise them completely. Now, as we writhe and squirm amidst the worst economic crisis in living history, the Corporate plan for total control of the continent in the first instance, and the planet in the second, is nearing successful completion.

What amazes this writer is that there are still those `amateur` researchers, who although far more informed than the average State/Media programmed `resource` still cannot understand that these are not chaotic times. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The `project` is completely `on track` and nearing it’s conclusion. So arrogant are the `Lord and Masters` now, that even a minor detail such as the Irish Referendum `NO` vote does not deter their ambitions. So how were a relatively small cadre of conspirators able to achieve this astonishing level of supremacy over a population of almost 500 million people?

A detailed dissection of this question is not feasible in an Essay of this kind, but an examination of the above diagram will help us understand the main instruments of control by which all the countries of Europe (even those outside of the bloc still incredulously clambering for membership) have handed over control to the European Federalists.

The Center.

An illegitimate money power without any public mandate drawing it’s strength from Usury, Monopoly Capitalism and the Industrial Military Complex.. The source of all great power in the 21st century and the 20th before it is money. And the root and base of this power is Usury, that is the issue of money as interest bearing debt. Since the 1980’s, banks and lenders have seemingly been falling over themselves to lend money. Now as we try to ride out our present woes, we are told that money is scarce. Why is it scarce? Because the same people who were lending it so willingly are no longer doing so. They `create` money as figures on a screen in the form of loans. It is money out of thin air, backed by nothing other than the people’s taxes, and a belief that it exists and that it has some worth.

In this way, they have enticed millions of people to sign their freedoms away for the promise of a new home, car, kitchen or bathroom. Then when the time was right, NOW, they started calling in unpaid loans, manipulating prices, raising interest rates and destroying jobs and manufacturing production in the process. Then, with the people in fear for their existence, and terrified of what the future might bring, demanding naively that something be done, they come up with the solution they had planned all along; More centralisation of bank ownership. State and Corporate mergers through `Government Buyout` packages and the call for a uniform across the board single currency not only for Europe, but for the whole planet.

When the dust settles, we will see that the middle classes have been so badly damaged, that their political and economic power base will be no more. This is how `fiefdoms` and servitude is established.

The Corporate Media.

Supplied with unlimited funds and control over the mass media, the `New lords` of money have been able to dictate what is given to the public by way of knowledge and information. Through television and radio, they use subliminal messaging technology to entrap and entice people into exchanging their identities as individual human souls for that of `consumers`. They manipulate all avenues of `News` reporting ensuring that the `Third Way` consensus is consolidated and maintained.

The European Ideal is paramount and our children are indoctrinated into it by the most subtle and non subtle of means. Popular music and movies, loaded with trigger sounds and words have created a `dumbing down` effect across the continent which is matched and exceeded only in some respects by what can be found in the same media forum across the Atlantic. With a owned and controlled compliant press in tow, which simply repeats and enlarges upon the lies of the Six O’clock News from the evening before, it is little wonder that the vast majority’s idea of reality is totally askew.

Politics.

The Financial control and manipulation of politics along with the concerted undermining of private enterprise capitalism combined with a progressive programme of State (EU) interference in all aspects of private commerce, has all but destroyed this once proud and independent feature of the European way of life. The mystery of 21st century European politics is the little understood relationship between `Monopoly Capitalism` and Marxism. Two irrefutable facts of 20th century history, although not generally known, is that without huge financial support from the west, the Russian Revolution would not have happened, and that the Industrial and Military strength of the USSR was almost entirely a creation of the West.

Inside the EU, precisely the same techniques and motives have been powerfully at work, undermining systematically the individual member state’s private enterprise capitalist system, substituting in it’s stead elements of pure Socialism and not surprisingly, the EU Commission can be seen to have been implementing in many ways Marx’s own ten points, which are calculated to bring the whole Bloc under a `Socialist` Corporatist Imperium. Namely a Communitarian New European Order. The Canadian Professor and author, Henry Makow puts it this way:

“The Illuminati’s `revolutionary goal` is the New World Order, or authoritarian socialism run by monopoly capital. It is big government in the service of big business. The Left in the service of the Right”.

Foreign Policy.

The European Unionists see their project as a revival of Ancient Rome. A New European Order along the lines of the Roman Empire. A `Pax Europa` if you will. This `vision of a Pan European Superpower has always been the `endgame` and disciples of this ideal have been growing in both support and popularity within the inner sanctum of the Commission over past few decades. The view is that only within the scenario of "Superpower Europe" will "Greater Europe" achieve its rightful world-power potential. Therefore it is rationalised that the "final goal of a European state" should be pursued. All central political competences (interior, foreign policy, defence, social and economic policies) must be Communitised. The EU, already developing in the direction of "Superpower Europe", would always be capable of accepting new members . Thus it would be "globally the only system which could continually expand its territory. Then the great political and economic power potential of the EU would achieve parity with the USA" .

It is necessary to understand that this emerging `superbloc` is only truly relevant in the context of any future World Government Organisation. A `Superpower` only in as much as it forms one regional supranational entity as would a North American Union, and an Asia Pacific Union, all subordinated to the World Government and Army.

Culture.

The subversion of national culture, including literature, art, music and the undermining of institutions and traditions, church, family and morality was a prerequisite to establishing the Communitarian Supranational State. Only by severing the people’s roots to these aspects of national life could the conspiratorial goals be realised. Organ transplant surgeons encounter a problem called `rejection`, whereby the organ receiver’s body, programmed by nature, rejects the new organ because it simply does not belong. Similarly, before a population can be expected to tolerate any new system of control, means must be found to reduce said populace to a condition of `apathetic servitude`.

Winston Churchill showed his understanding of this when he wrote back in 1922 that there could be no World Government as envisaged by Marxists except on the basis of an induced state of universal arrested development. Since the end of WWII, the peoples of Europe along with the rest of humankind have been, through various means, reduced to exactly that state. This has been achieved via a diabolical program of culture distortion, using subversive genre’s of popular music, ever more degrading and perverse forms of pornography, theater and cinema themes which distort reality and show an inverted and corrupted ideal of all that is natural, moral and good, together with the encouragement of decadence in every possible form.

Briefly put, the substitution of a people’s own indigenous culture with forms of `entertainment` contrived to instill confusion on a mass scale, and paralyse the collective will at source. This undermining and subversion of the culture is openly promoted and encouraged by the media whores of the New Lords Of Money, with the most degraded, drug addicted so called `artists` being touted as role models for our youth.

Science.

Science must be controlled and manipulated in order to prevent any obstruction being placed in the way of the Communitarians. For sake of necessity, there must be truth at least in some of the academic disciplines such as maths, physics, chemistry etc. These the money power need and must have for patently obvious reasons. But it cannot allow at any cost a truth or truths which at last gives pure knowledge to mankind and allows the `useless eaters` to liberate themselves from the millennia of deception they have been subjected to. Scientific truths about the `heavenly bodies` during the renaissance were nowhere near as suppressed as are the genuine products of scientific research today in all those fields of inquiry which cause man to explore his own self, such as anthropology, genetics, psychology and history. The persecution and defamation of those who refuse to accept and conform can be traced back time and again to the illegitimate money power, which in reality always decides who is appointed to a teaching post at a university and who is not. Whose work and research is published and whose is condemned to obscurity.

History.

The falsification and suppression of history (especially recent history) goes hand in hand with the falsification and suppression of news. People will lose all confidence in the media if they discover that they have been lied to or denied the truth. This holds true whether we speak of events today, or fifty years since. The control and manipulation of more recent history has become a primary factor in modern political warfare. Unless people know the truth about the past, they will not be equipped to understand the present, and without a clear understanding of this fact, will have no way of helping determine what will occur in the future. As George Orwell wrote, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past”. Control of the study of history, especially of the past 100 years is exercised by a system of `Intellectual Terrorism` intended to suppress knowledge which will arm our minds against an enemy whose greatest power lies in it’s capacity for deception.

Agitation.

“The West has been crippled by a corrosive and corrupt ideology-morality that causes our political elite to declare themselves in sympathy with, and in support of the very elements that boldly proclaim their goal to be the destruction of the nation states of the west”. Richard Clarke.

Nowhere is the merging between the Capitalist super rich and the Marxist `supposedly` anti-capitalists more clearly established than it is in `Brussels`.

As Nikki Raapana writes: "The `Communitarians work behind the scenes. Elite communitarian 'thinkers' quietly slide their new laws inside projects and programs few regular people will think or dare to question. And, just so you won't look any closer, (or open your mouth to ask one dumb question) the Communitarians mask their fascist programs behind all kinds of lovely phrasing. The new phrases work so well that if you do stand out and speak up with a debatable question, it means you don't want to live in a safe and healthy community. And since everyone has to agree in order to reach communitarian consensus, you will be shunned and excluded from the decision making 'councils.' Go ahead and try, but the shifty Communitarians will NEVER debate you because their programs are based entirely in a lie called Communism."

Religion.

There is no doubt in the mind of this writer that the most powerful source of resistance to the `illegitimate` power will be found in a people’s religion. I will state quite clearly at this point that I myself have been in the past somewhat irreligious, and that has quite likely been to my detriment in some ways. But I have, through recent close contact with some true Christians and Muslims, come to realise that through faith comes resilience, determination and strength.

The central purpose of religion appears to be a means of giving to the individual a spiritual and intellectual base from which that individual can make relative all the stressors and influences he/she encounters and thereby secure a grounded sense of purpose, direction and belonging. Religion, whichever form it might take must forever be at the core of the culture, sustained by and sustaining the arts.

Corruption of religion by powers whose intentions are anything other than religious will have the most destructive of consequences for society in general. Within the EU bloc and further afield,. the result of this corruption has been a secularization and politicisation of the `Church` along with the creation of the `World Council of Churches`.

As the American Ezra Pound once said, “There is no medieval description of hell which exceeds the inner filth of the mentalities of some of the ministers and prelates for whom every species of cruelty and villainy is condoned, even incited, if perpetrated under the banner of the universalist political objectives prescribed by the money power.”

The Communitarian Super-Capitalist Nexus.

“The world is governed by very different persons to what is imagined by those who are not themselves behind the scene”. Benjamin Disraeli, British Prime Minister to Queen Victoria.

Even a cursory investigation of the forces shaping our current woeful situation, creating a socio-political climate described by `Spengler` as “Anarchy become a habit” would be incomplete, without a more informed look at those two supposed `arch` opposites, Capitalism and Communism. The key word here is Capitalism. This oft used word actually has two very divergent meanings. In order to grasp why a Supranational `would be` Federal State such as the EU, representing ostensibly capitalist interests, would adopt social policies which are in almost every way imaginable Communist, we must first understand the two meanings of this word; Capitalist. Actually, we are speaking here of two words in affect:

1) Capitalism, meaning private ownership of property and resources and competitive free enterprise in the supply of goods and services.

2) Super-Capitalism, meaning a highly concentrated finance capitalism which is not only apart from capitalism, but it’s antithesis and which sooner rather than later acquires the characteristic of being actively `anti-capitalist`.

It is not possible to continue to concentrate ownership and control of property and resources without simultaneously reducing the number who own and control said property and resources. Similarly, there can be no concentration of Corporate Ownership and control, without a corresponding inhibition and suppression of free enterprise. What has happened within the European Union is a progressive degeneration of Capitalism into a form of `Super Capitalism` or what should be more properly termed `Anti Capitalism` which resembles Capitalism less and less and Socialism or Communism more and more.

The bare minimum of `bona fide` capitalist values have been allowed to remain in order to confuse the picture and create difficulties for most people to identify that their traditional economic way of life has in fact been replaced by this new `Money Concentration`. Capitalism serves only as a means of camouflage for an all encompassing and omnipotent `Anti Capitalism` dominating both economics and politics.

The modern `Super-Capitalist` EU has more in common with the former Soviet Union than anyone not involved in this area of research would ever imagine to be the case. Yes, there are differences and opposing spheres of interest, but these become insignificant in comparison to what they have in common. Both are virulently antagonistic towards Nationalism and are therefore revolutionary in principal, setting themselves as they do in fierce opposition to Nationalist aspirations which are essentially evolutionary. Nationalism, a much maligned and misrepresented political credo is inseparably connected to a people’s culture and traditions. This causes it to become the mortal enemy of the `Supra-nationalists` whose goal is the Super-state.

The reason that this `Super-Capitalism` lives in eternal dread of Nationalism can be explained by examining the fundamental issue of whether there should in any state construct be an authority superior to economics. Which shall govern, politics or economics? Through ethical nationalism, in spite of it’s inherited ailments, the will of the people is made vital, which causes politics to become the master over economics, which no matter how important it might be, is then relegated to it‘s morally natural subordinate status.

Since there is no way that Communism, or more correctly in this the first decade of the 21st century, Communitarianism, can be resisted except by nationalism, it is of no surprise that the `Super-Capitalists` have for the past fifty years and more been ruthlessly dedicated to destroying the nation state and severing from it the love and loyalty of the people.

The Communitarians understand that their only weapon against Nationalism is Marxist theory, and that in itself marshals all the forces of the underworld along with the `rootless` academics using them as a `siege gun` against any or all nationalist targets (see the murder of Austrian Politician, Jorg Haider).

Conclusion.

The European Federal State will usher in a new age of Feudalism for the people of the old continent. The technological advances in recent years have enabled the `designers and planners` to construct a `Grid` around people’s lives, using insidious database technology combined with despicable propaganda and pernicious surveillance of all and every aspect of a citizens life. Yet still, we the people do nothing. There are reported to be around 50,000 concentration camps already in place earmarked for EU dissidents (http://www.rense.com/general81/conce.htm ). The Military is still on the streets of Italy, and the Euro Gendarmerie (http://righteousalliance.blogspot.com/2009/07/tyranny-of-law.html) is ready to be unleashed. During the 1930’s, even though all the signs were there , people refused to recognise them. Are we going to once again fail to learn from our history?

Jean Monnet, the so called ` founding father of the EU did everything but paint us a picture when he wrote:

“ Europe’s nations should be guided towards the Superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation .“ (Letter to a friend 30th April 1952).

Now is a time for `Heroes` and time is short. Just maybe once again, the Irish people will show the rest of Europe the way forward and be as heroes for all of us denied the right to self determination by our lying and cheating politicians.

Ref:

This Age Of Confict - Ivor BensonStop Common Purpose - http://www.stopcp.com/cpbreachesthesevenprinciples.phpBalder.org - http://balder.org/judea/Richard-Coudenhove-Kalergi-Practical-Idealism-Vienna-1925.phphttp://www.freenations.freeuk.com/The reference base for this article regarding what Communitarianism is and who Communitarians are can be found at http://nord.twu.net/acl/standfor.html

The Pornographic Conspiracy : Destroying The Family-Degrading The Human Spirit.

By Philip Jones 29th July 2009.

Introduction.

Throughout the Western World, the Christian foundations of decency, morality, restraint, and integrity; the very moral anchor which held our civilisation together for centuries, has come under a concerted and simultaneous multi-theatre attack, which in it's ferocity and intensity can only be described as diabolical. Here in Northern Europe, with some rare exceptions, the last bastion of what is true, virtuous and righteous, is to be found paradoxically, only amongst the followers of Islam, and make no mistake about it, even that community of faithful believers, is coming under pernicious attack by the agents of change, in the form of the welfare state; dabbling in the affairs of Muslim families, the education system, gradually breaking down the moral and belief systems of the young, and of course, the sick and twisted `entertainment industry` along with the mass media in general.

In my recent article, `Who Rules The World,`[1] I hypothesised that the very source of those afflictions, which have and continue to debase and de-construct our way of life, eroding ever more, all that was once marvellous and righteous, in lands which once formed what was known as `Christendom,` is literally the work of Satan/Lucifer, who with a little help from his legions of `Fallen Angels,` Demon helpers, and his bloodline [3]descendants known as the Illuminati, is establishing his dominion here on earth, just as he set out to do at the very beginning of time.

Having outlined in detail in that three part series the basis for my hypothesis, there is no need to elaborate further here. It is sufficient to direct the reader to that article so that he/she may judge for his/herself whether there is any credibility in my assertion.

Those elements of social and moral decay that we are witnessing today; the increasingly pornographic culture, high divorce rates; growing numbers of unwed single mothers; the hordes of illegitimate children; homosexuality and lesbianism, sexual perversion and the alarmingly high number of abortions, is not some new phenomenon. It is an ingenious and fiendish plot that has been around for many Millennia (see Sodom and Gomorrah and the cruel and debased cultures prevalent throughout the land of Canaan and further afield during Old Testament times)… designed to annihilate what is, the very heart and foundation of all good and decent society; namely, the family!

You are about to read written proof of this clandestine conspiracy. You will learn about who and what is behind it, and their fierce unwavering mission to degrade and eradicate the family, separate man from his mate, pervert and `filthify` our God given human spirit, and drag what's left of humanity after their multi faceted depopulation agenda has been taken to it's illogical conclusion, into a Luciferian nightmare, whereby a relatively small and immensely wealthy and powerful `bloodline` elite, hold sway as the `proxy` lords of this planet, for their master, Lucifer.

Destroy The Family.

In 1956, J. Edgar Hoover, [5] the then Director of the FBI, himself a 33rd Degree Freemason and therefore no stranger to Luciferian machinations and other deviant behaviour, somewhat paradoxically wrote:

“The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent.” The Elks Magazine (August 1956)

Mr. Hoover knew what he was talking about, and it is probably even truer today to comment that few people understand, or even consider the malicious forces now arrayed against the family, the institution of marriage and the very nature of our being. They simply cannot comprehend how hell-bent the forces of evil are on destroying the family. Read into the chilling words of Communist demagogue, Lenin: “Destroy the family and you destroy society," [1]and then get an idea of the dire and perilous nature of the situation.

Lenin had a devious plan to carry out his sinister plot and he wasn’t alone! We will deal with this in a moment. But firstly, it is necessary to recognise the direct parallels of our current state of affairs to the original Marxist Communist plot to eradicate the family, as was noted in the 1926 July issue of the Atlantic Monthly:

`When the Bolsheviki came into power in 1917 they regarded the family, like every other "bourgeois" institution, with fierce hatred, and set out with a will to destroy it. "To clear the family out of the accumulated dust of the ages we had to give it a good shake-up, and we did," declared Madame Smidovich, a leading Communist and active participant in the recent discussion. So one of the first decrees of the Soviet Government abolished the term "illegitimate children." This was done simply by equalizing the legal status of all children, whether born in wedlock or out of it, and now the Soviet Government boasts that Russia is the only country where there are no illegitimate children. The father of a child is forced to contribute to its support, usually paying the mother a third of his salary...

At the same time, a law was passed which made divorce a matter of a few minutes, to be obtained at the request of either partner in a marriage. Chaos was the result. Men took to changing wives with the same zest which they displayed in the consumption of the recently restored forty-per-cent vodka.

"Some men have twenty wives, living a week with one, a month with another," asserted an indignant woman delegate during the sessions of the Tzik. "They have children with all of them, and these children are thrown on the street for lack of support!"

(There are three hundred thousand… shelter-less children in Russia to-day, who are literally turned out on the streets. They are one of the greatest social dangers of the present time, because they are developing into professional criminals. More than half of them are drug addicts and sex perverts. It is claimed by many Communists that the break-up of the family is responsible for a large percentage of these children.)

The peasant villages have perhaps suffered most from this revolution in sex relations. An epidemic of marriages and divorces broke out in the country districts. [Marriage became a game where it] was not unusual for a boy of twenty to have had three or four wives, or for a girl of the same age to have had three or four abortions. The peasants… bitterly complained: “Abortions cover our villages with shame. Formerly we did not even hear of them.” Many women… found marriage and childbearing a profitable occupation. They formed connections ( sexual) with the sons of well-to-do peasants and then blackmailed the father for the support of the children. In some cases peasants have been obliged to sell [everything] in order to settle such… claims. The law has created still more confusion because… women can claim support for children born many years ago.

During the winter of 1924-1925 some of the older Communists accused the younger generation… of indulging… in loose connections; they blame the girl students for practising frequent abortions… Russian women students… [noted] that love was almost the only cheap amusement left to them and demanded that they be given… free abortions that factory women enjoy… Both in the villages and in the cities, the problem of the unmarried mother has become very acute and provides a severe and annoying test of Communist theories.

…Another new point was that wife and husband would have an equal right to claim support from the other… The woman would have the right to demand support for her child even if she lived with several men during the period of conception; but, in contrast to previous practice, she or the court would choose one man who would be held responsible for the support. Commissar Kursky seemed especially proud of this point because it differed so much from the 'bourgeois customs' of Europe and America.
Another speaker objected to the proposed law on the ground that some women would take advantage of its liberal provisions to form connections with wealthy men and then blackmail them for alimony.[2]

[1] Lenin merely repeated what Socrates had said and what Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx put into words. Lenin set out to do just that, hoping that a new society -- with the State as the ultimate father -- could be constructed. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, we have seen the consequences of the experiment.

[2] The Atlantic Monthly; July 1926; The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage; Volume 138, No. 1; page 108-114. You can read the document in its entirety by clicking here.

Here’s how the scheme to destroy the family is mapped out:

1] Eliminate the sacredness of the marriage covenant from the minds of the masses. Make them believe marriage is outdated and blasé.

2] Inspire hatred against the family unit, manhood and fatherhood.

3] Institute no-fault divorce and encourage serial divorces.

4] Incite rampant promiscuity, fornication and adultery.

5] Make having illegitimate children become a common practice.

6] Convince society that a child in the womb is not a human being.

7] Provoke women to have abortions without regard to God or their consciences.

8] Make true love seem like cheap amusement.

9] Stimulate the people to confuse sex with love.

10] Create an environment that encourages unwed single motherhood.

11] Inspire men to disrespect, dishonour and abuse women.

12] Design laws that motivate women to commit paternity fraud.

13] Incite homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual immorality and perversion.

14] Influence men to effortlessly abandon children they sire.

15] Most importantly, provoke a fierce relentless gender war.

Is there anybody reading this who can't draw parallels with their own society?

As you have read above, what happened in the Soviet Union in 1926 was no accident, and it is important to appreciate and easy to see, that the social and moral carnage now occurring throughout the West; the high divorce rate, the huge numbers of unwed mothers, the rage against fatherhood, the gender wars, the overt battle being waged against marriage and the family, and the highly detailed attacks on the bedrock of our civilisation, are equally as well planned, orchestrated and micromanaged by the same evil force which established and funded that rotten regime.

We will now witness how certain Americans, like their Communist Russian counterparts, have also been and still are, determined to de-construct, dismantle and exterminate the family.

The Conspirators.

“The nuclear family must be destroyed , and people must find better ways of living together. ... Whatever it’s ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ... "Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests. ...” — Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969.

"By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God" — Gloria Steinem, editor of 'MS' magazine.

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage. " -- [Robin Morgan, "Sisterhood Is Powerful," (ed), 1970, p. 537]

“The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it" — Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in Women and the New Rage, p.67

"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men." — The Declaration of Feminism , November 1971

"Only when manhood is dead - and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it - only then will we know what it is to be free." -- [Andrea Dworkin. "The Root Cause," speech, 26 Sept. 1975, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (published in Our Blood, ch. 9, 1976).]

"The care of children ...is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation...[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." — Kate Millet, Sexual Politics 178-179

"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them." -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Centre for Research on Woman

"Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is, if you don't like it, bad luck - and if you get in my way I'll run you down." — Letter to the Editor: Women's Turn to Dominate, Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia; Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia, February 9, 1996

"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex." — Valerie Solana, SCUM Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men.)

"How will the family unit be destroyed? ... the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare."— Female Liberation , by Roxanne Dunbar.

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." — Robin Morgan, (editor of MS magazine)

“…It is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" — The Declaration of Feminism , November 1971.

"God is going to change. We women... will change the world so much that He won't fit any-more." — Naomi Goldenberg, Changing of the Gods: Feminism and the End of Traditional Religions (Quoted at beginning of From Father God to Mother Earth)

I hope that the reader now understands by the sheer malevolence of the above statements, that the Communist `front group` known as the feminist movement, has nothing whatsoever to do with `women's rights,` and everything to do with the complete and total emasculation of the human male, the enforced collapse of patriarchy and the breakdown of the family, thereby facilitating the depopulation agenda[2] and aiding the implementation of the Satanic New World Order. This attack against the family, against the institution of marriage and against God and country is not a game!

These people are serious about abolishing the family unit, and the American nation, along with all other nation states in fact. They are relentless and will stop at nothing to eradicate God, morals, marriage, manhood, womanhood, fatherhood, motherhood, husband-hood and love of nation from our hearts and minds. Their mission is to persuade the masses to engage in a cloaked form of Satan Worship, disguised among other things as humanistic atheism, pantheism, `earth` worship, along with accompanying social aberrations such as misogyny, domestic violence, child abandonment, child support schemes and traps, paternity fraud, serial divorces, serial abortions, pornography, sexual perversion, homosexuality and lesbianism.

Pornography : Debasing Human Nature.

It cannot be argued that one of the most insidious weapons being used in this war against God's most honoured institution, is Pornography, and it is this aspect of the vengeful battle being directed against the hearts, souls and consciences of men and women, not only here in the west, but increasingly due to internet access, on a global scale, which I will now deal with in some detail.

Sexual material of all kinds is now all too easily accessible through television, movies, music videos, and particularly the Internet. Many will have us believe that this relentless intrusion of pornographic, sexualised imagery is harmless, but it is anything but. It is a debased aberrant form of human sexuality, encouraged by the agents of those doing the work of Lucifer, which is highly addictive, destructive, demoralising, corrupting and eventually fatal to any chance of a moral and decent way of life. Despite what its apologists and defenders say, pornography has a profoundly negative effect on how people view sex and sexual behaviour. Researchers at the National Foundation for Family Research and Education concluded not surprisingly that "exposure to pornography puts viewers at increased risk for developing sexually deviant tendencies." According to the report, "the rape myth (belief that women cause and enjoy rape, and that rapists are normal) is very widespread in habitual male users of pornography."

There is also evidence that the repeated use of pornography can interfere with the ability to enjoy and participate in normal marital intimacy. Dr.Victor Cline, a specialist in treating sex addiction, has documented a recurring progression in the use of pornography. If left unchecked, what starts as casual viewing of pornography can eventually lead to an escalation to more hard-core, aberrant material. This, he claims, can lead to deviant sexual acts. Behavioural scientists agree. Dr. Cline reports that "any type of sexual deviation can be acquired in this way, and that it cannot be eliminated even by massive feelings of guilt." Eventually, the viewer may try to act out the pornography-based, immoral fantasies, often with devastating results.

The course of this problem may be gradual and undetected, concluded Cline. He states: "Like a cancer, it keeps growing and spreading. It rarely ever reverses itself, and it is also very difficult to treat and heal. Denial on the part of the male addict and refusal to confront the problem are typical and predictable, and this almost always leads to marital or couple disharmony, sometimes divorce, and sometimes the breaking up of other intimate relationships."

The Damage To Young People.

Some researchers say that exposure to pornography can affect the natural development of a child's brain. Of course it can! Statistics show that the primary consumers of pornography are boys between the ages of 12 and 17 years. In fact, for many, pornography is their primary source of sexual education. This has very disturbing ramifications. "Teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases," notes one report, "are completely non-existent in porn, giving a false belief that there are no adverse consequences to behaviours depicted in pornography." Young males are being targeted by this industry of filth for a very definite reason: to warp and pervert their ability to interact normally with girls, by portraying the human female as little more than a collection of body orifices to be filled.

Dr.Judith Reisman, [6] president of the Institute for Media Education, and one of the most exceptional human beings currently inhabiting this planet, concludes: "Health-based neurological observations about the instinctual brain-imprinted response to pornographic sights and sounds indicates that viewing pornography is a biologically significant event that overrides informed consent—and that is harmful to children's [moldable] 'plastic' brains because it compromises their grasp of reality and thus their mental and physical health, their well-being and their pursuit of happiness."

Pornography shapes attitudes and influences behaviour. Its messages are enticing primarily because they are fantasy and thus presented as more exciting than the real thing. “Individuals using pornography set themselves up for unrealistic expectations leading to damaged relationships," notes one report. Pornography not only can, but is of course intended, to destroy trust and openness, two highly essential qualities in a marriage. Because it is primarily viewed in secret, pornography use often leads to deception and lying. Mates feel betrayed. They do not understand why their marriage partner no longer finds them desirable, and what's more nor does he..
Remember, as we have discussed above, the object of the exercise is the destruction of the family. How many marriage breakups and broken homes can be blamed on pornographic addiction?

At a 2003 meeting of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, two thirds of the 350 divorce lawyers who attended, said the Internet played a significant role in the divorces in the past year, with excessive interest in on-line porn contributing to more than half such cases. Pornography had an almost non-existent role in divorce just seven or eight years ago[7]

The insistence on selfish instant gratification at all costs is inbuilt and inherent in pornography use. Hence, viewing pornography is unloving. It undercuts a true believer's fight to maintain chastity and a clean moral standing before God. Pornography exploits men, women and children. It demeans them and robs them of their dignity and rights.

The Main-Streaming Of Perversion.

Many people today are ambivalent toward pornography, because like all those other vices now prevalent in the West, it has entered the mainstream and become to a large degree, accepted practice. Modern attitudes toward pornography may be reflected by the 'prostitute-chic' fashions many celebrities sport, the music videos that increasingly flaunt sexual imagery, and the advertising media's adoption of a "porno aesthetic."

Doctors now claim that pornography can spark an addiction that is far more difficult to overcome than drug addiction. Treatment for drug addicts usually starts with detoxification to remove the substance from the body. But addiction to pornography, explains Dr. Mary Anne Layden of the University of Pennsylvania, "produces mental imagery which is permanently implanted in the mind of the user and is scaled in by brain chemistry." That is why individuals can vividly recall pornographic images from years past. She concludes: "This is the first addictive substance for which there is no hope for detoxification." But does that mean it is impossible to break free from pornography's influence? And what specific harm does pornography cause?

Internet Pornography Facts:

About 75 percent of Internet pornography originates in the United States. Close to 15 percent originates in Europe.

It is estimated that some 70 million people a week visit pornographic Web sites. About 20 million of these users are in Canada and the United States.

A study revealed that during a recent one-month period, Germany had the largest audience for on-line pornography in Europe, followed by Great Britain, France, Italy, and Spain.

In Germany, Internet pornography users spend an average of 70 minutes each month viewing pornographic sites.

Among European viewers of Internet pornography, those above 50 years of age spend the most time connected to adult Web sites.

According to one source, 70 percent of Internet pornography traffic occurs during the day.

It is estimated by some that 100,000 Internet sites include material on child pornography.

About 80 percent of the Internet's commercial child pornography originates in Japan.

There is a proven connection between pornography and rape, as well as other forms of violence against women and children. Infamous serial killer Ted Bundy admits that he had a "strong appetite for violent pornography." He says: "This condition is not immediately seen by the individual or identified as a serious problem. But this interest becomes geared towards matters of a sexual nature that involve violence. I cannot emphasize enough the gradual development of this. It is not short-term."

Rather than portraying sexual relations as a beautiful and intimate expression of love between a man and a woman in honourable marriage, pornography demeans and distorts the sexual act. Casual and perverted sex is portrayed as being exciting and desirable. Personal gratification with little or no regard for the other person is highlighted. Women, men, and children are portrayed as objects that exist only for sexual gratification. "Beauty is measured by proportion of body parts, shaping unrealistic expectations," says one report. "Depicting women as anonymous, ever-wanting/waiting, empty sex toys for men, stripping and exposing their bodies for monetary gain and entertainment cannot possibly translate into a message that can exist in harmony with equality, dignity and humanity," concludes another report.

Soon, like any other improper stimulation, what initially arouses becomes mundane and routine. "Over time," says one writer, "[the users of pornography] require more explicit and deviant material. They may push their partners into increasingly bizarre sexual activities, diminishing their [own] capacity to express real affection." Does that sound like a harmless diversion?

Instead of love, pornography cultivates self-centred, selfish desire, and fractures and stains every person it contaminates. It destroys all decency and is a major threat to our traditional way of life, and particularly, marriage and family.

Pornography - A Vicious Assault On The Family.

It is a sad reality that many Internet porn viewers are children. Youngsters who though prohibited by law from purchasing pornographic literature or from renting pornographic videos, can gain access to these in their own home with a few clicks of the mouse. The choices are endless. Many children regularly visit Internet sites without their parents' knowledge. In fact, The Detroit News states that "more than two in five children have subscribed to a web site or other service online even though nearly 85 percent of parents have rules against them doing so."

Many think that a casual brush with pornography is harmless. However, the facts show otherwise. Consider the case of a couple who seemed to have an ideal marriage. They were financially secure, and they loved to travel. Their friends thought of them as close, affectionate, and devoted, and in many ways they were. However, problems arose when the husband started looking at pornography. Writing to a popular advice columnist, his anxious wife described her concerns: "When [my husband] first started to spend a lot of time on the computer in the middle of the night and early morning, he told me it was 'research.' I walked in on him one morning and caught him looking at [pornography]. He said it was only a matter of curiosity. When I took a closer look at what he was watching, it made me sick. He was embarrassed and promised to stop, and I believed he meant it. He has always been honourable—a man of his word."

This man's perverse habit has cost him his self respect, his honour, his integrity, and the respect and admiration of his wife. It has destroyed something intrinsic and wholesome within him. He has become weakened and his resolve degraded. Many men are now being lured into a similar trap; anxious to avoid discovery, they log on late at night or early in the morning. If they are caught, they often try to cover up what they are doing by lying, as this man did. Can anyone reasonably claim that a "hobby" that causes "a man of his word" to sneak around in the middle of the night and to lie to loved ones is harmless?

Pornography makes a profit out of the suffering of others, and is designed in the main to degrade and subvert the innate goodness in people, causing serious personal and family problems, to isolate, corrupt and demoralise. Many people caught up in this evil `racket,` have admitted that watching pornography has prevented them from developing close relationships with others. They don't want people around while they indulge their passion for pornography. People tend to fantasize when they watch pornography, and fantasy does not equip a person to cultivate strong relationships or to deal with life in the real world. Increasingly, we are hearing of cases where people who look at or read pornographic material even have trouble enjoying normal sexual relations with their mate. Is that conducive to good family relations? Of course not. Nor is it intended to be. Can a pastime that alienates people from those who care the most about them be truly innocuous?

We must consider God's original purpose for married people. He lovingly endowed husbands and wives with the ability to give joyous expression of their love for each other, through honourable sexual relations. Proverbs 5:18, 19 shows that these were meant to be pleasurable: "Rejoice with the wife of your youth. Let her own breasts intoxicate you at all times. With her love may you be in ecstasy constantly."

Note that love, not depraved animal like lust, was to be the basis for sexual relations. The person who looks at pornography is gratifying his own sexual desires—and alone, in most cases. A married man who looks at pornography may begin to view his mate as a mere object—someone who exists solely for his pleasure, or conversely, he simply loses interest in her altogether. This is far from the dignity and honour that the Creator intended men to accord women. (see 1 Peter 3:7) Such a practice that interferes with the most intimate aspects of marriage can never be viewed as desirable? Moreover, the pornographic industry, owned and controlled as it is by the Illuminati, understands only too well that what begins as a casual indulgence inevitably leads to a damaging long-term addiction. One writer observed: "Just as drug addicts require more potent drugs to receive a 'high,' consumers of pornography must have a more intense experience to achieve the same euphoric feelings as before."

That is apparently what happened to the husband mentioned earlier in this article. One evening several months after he promised to stop watching pornography, his wife returned home and found him at the computer. From his demeanour she could see that something was wrong. "[He] appeared quite nervous and upset," she wrote; "I looked at the computer, and sure enough, he had been looking at some unbelievably raunchy stuff. He said he was sincere when he promised to give it up, but he just couldn't stay away from it."

Just like narcotics, gambling, alcohol and the plethora of other vices tearing down the Christian moral fabric of our societies, pornography has been created and designed to create an immoral dependency, which destroys not only the trust and respect of loved ones, but a person's self respect and trust in himself. It is a tool of those who will dethrone all righteousness and goodness and replace it with the purest of evil.

Lucifer's Indulgence: Humankind's Scourge.

Sarah Evelyn Isobel Payne [4]was murdered by Roy William Whiting in July 2000. The subsequent investigation became a high profile murder case in the United Kingdom. Following his conviction, Whiting was imprisoned for life and is currently being held in the maximum security Wakefield prison, in West Yorkshire.

There is one fact in the disturbing history of Roy Whiting, convicted of the murder of eight year-old Sarah Payne, which has not received much attention. He had kept large quantities of pornography in his garage workshop. Indeed, there is scarcely a sex offender who has not had an acute pornography habit. In America, the FBI has reported that 81 percent of sex killers have said their biggest sexual interest lay in viewing pornography, and in compulsive masturbation. Now, no-one would suggest that pornography alone causes such men to go and commit these terrible offences; and many men who use porn lead otherwise blameless lives.

But equally, as the British sex crimes expert, Ray Wyre has observed, pornography creates a climate of thought and belief which influences attitudes towards women and children. What’s more, Wyre says, the more men masturbate to pornographic fantasies, the more likely they are to put those fantasies into practice. In other words, porn has an effect on the behaviour of those who use it. Yet many think instead it acts as a safety valve. Unlike fantasies involving violence, sexual pornography is widely thought to be harmless. More than that, `Tatler` magazine now reports that porno-chic is the new fashion statement. After all, our society now runs on sex like a car runs on petrol. TV, films, ads for everything from perfume to ice cream, are all sold on more and more explicit sex. So since sex is no longer taboo, isn’t it ridiculous to behave like Mrs Grundy over pornography?

After all, the argument goes, English culture has always been bawdy and debauched. Just think of Chaucer’s Miller’s Tale; or Shakespeare’s prostitute Doll Tearsheet; or, indeed, the pornography produced by the Victorians. Who now would ban the works of DH Lawrence, Radclyffe Hall, James Joyce or Henry Miller, all of whom were once considered obscene? Tastes change all the time, along with standards of acceptability. Pornography is a legitimate form of expression which may even do some good, say it's apologists.

Such an ostensibly sophisticated view is surely naive and self-deluding. It was fashionable in the sixties and seventies to believe that if people were freed from rules and constraints, they could be trusted to place limits on their own behaviour. But as the feminist Germaine Greer has observed, porn is nothing to do with freedom of expression. It is a ruthless industry which abuses not only those who furnish its imagery but also the men who pay for its product.

The Graphic Detail.

Today’s pornography is no longer a bit of full-frontal nudity and some explicit bumping and grinding. What was illegal merely eighteen months ago — and could only be obtained by means of a package slipped out from the back of some tacky premises — is now legally on open display in licensed sex shops and available through the internet. The spread of computers has hugely increased the availability of pornography, which can be downloaded so easily from the web. What was considered illegal material, amounted to cruelty, degradation and humiliation of women through close-ups of penetration, ejaculation and masturbation. Now such images are all legal.

The details are sordid, and will shock many. But it is surely essential that people are aware of what is being tolerated in the name of freedom of expression and of personal choice. For these legal videos do not merely show loveless, sad encounters. They dehumanise sex altogether. There is very little view of faces or indeed any part of the anatomy apart from the genital region. Women and men are reduced to pieces of hydraulic machinery. The action consists mainly of close-ups of anal and vaginal penetration, sometimes simultaneous. Sometimes the girl undergoes double penetration while practising oral sex on a third man, or with more than one man at the same time. The female genital region is always shaved to produce a disturbing simulation of a child; worse still, it is often pulled back so the camera peers right inside it. The impression that fills the screen is of a carcass being rammed in every orifice.

What’s even more revolting is that in many of these videos the men ejaculate over the girl’s face. In one, as the eight or so men she is servicing do this to her, the girl’s expression is fixed in a ghastly simulation of pleasure — but for one brief moment when she thinks the camera isn’t looking, the mask slips and you see her utter disgust and despair before she resumes her pose. We are told that such girls are consenting adults. But so what? Has our society really arrived at such a pass that if a girl is so damaged that she allows herself to be treated worse than any animal — in effect, as a thing — this is considered acceptable because she is not doing it at knife-point?

Do we not care about the terrible degradation not only of the girl, but of the men buying this material, and of our whole society? Are we all now so de-sensitised that we have somehow persuaded ourselves that tolerating such monstrousness is in our interests?

The answer is despairingly `YES.` Our societies, hearts and minds are truly in the grip of the `Wicked One.`

An Expanding Industry.

Thanks to the internet, the sheer volume of pornography has exploded. Tapping in the word ‘porn’ to one server alone brings up 24,522 sites. These legal websites feature a huge amount of anal sex. This is all about pain and contempt. ‘Watch young teens bite their lips as they get it in the ass for the first time!’ invites one site. ‘Amazing anal - the world’s nastiest site’, boasts another. Yet another promises: ‘It’s hurting time: home to extreme pain hardcore’. This displays hot wax poured onto and even pins stuck through women’s genitals, and asserts: ‘These wenches do it because they love it’, fuelling the murderous fantasy that women want to be hurt.

There’s also heavy emphasis on ‘teen sluts’. These are almost certainly older girls pretending to be children, but even so this shades into paedophilia since the pitch is the stomach-heaving fantasy that these are children who will be ’split’ open. And all this is legal. You look at these vile images and you wonder what kind of a man could possibly find pleasure or release in them. For it’s no longer just the denizens of sleazy Soho who are consumers of hard-core. It’s the banker or the teacher or the advertising executive sitting in front of his computer in his neat suburban house or up-market apartment, downloading this viciousness from the web and then going out for a nice meal with his wife or girlfriend.

These websites, however, are immensely repetitive and tedious. They invite a credit card subscription on the promise of more extreme material, but then deny access to it unless yet more money is paid. In this way they lead the man on in the hope of finding the ultimate forbidden thrill. So when this doesn’t materialise, what could be more inevitable or easy for him than to get into an internet ‘chat room’ and download illegal paedophile pictures of penetration or oral sex with a child?

The illegal stuff on video and on the web is now confined to things like paedophilia, bestiality, torture or coprophilia, which involves bodily waste products. Yet such is the slide in norms of behaviour, the police expect that in due course these taboos too will disappear. So how is all this being allowed to happen? In the UK, the law controlling pornography is the 1959 Obscene Publications Act, which outlaws any material likely to deprave or corrupt. The first problem is the subjective nature of this definition and the absence of any firm evidence of the harm such images can do.

Legal Aid.

In May 2000, a decision by the UK courts dramatically undermined the restraint the law did offer. Mr Justice Hooper turned down a legal challenge by the British Board of Film Classification, to a decision by its own appeal panel that the Board had been wrong to insist on cuts of explicit sequences before it would license a group of porn videos. As result, the BBFC had to rewrite its own guidelines, which until then had outlawed explicit penetration or ejaculation from the videos it licensed. When board members asked the public for their views, they were told - to their horror - that the public wanted to make their own decision whether or not to view such material.

The outcome was that the Board had no option but to issue revised guidelines which they feared would open the floodgates. Just as they predicted, they found themselves licensing the kind of highly disturbing pornography that had previously been illegal. Moreover, these new guidelines rapidly became a benchmark for everyone else. So porn sites on the web started to circulate equally explicit material; top shelf magazines stocked by corner newsagents, started to include equivalent pictures; and TV stations such as Channel Four and Five are now also pushing to take advantage of this shift in practice.

A Harmless Diversion?

The argument is that pornographic images don’t harm anyone as they are merely fantasies. But fantasies of what? Of hurting women? Of humiliating them? Of treating them as dehumanised objects?As the philosopher Roger Scruton argues in his book `Sexual Desire,` fantasy has a tendency to remake the world in its own image. So the ‘harmless’ porn voyeur can turn into a rapist with a gun. For his fantasy is governed by monstrous myths and illusions - that women wish to be raped, that children are waiting to be awakened to sexual pleasure, or that violence is a natural right.

Pornography objectifies women and reduces them to a commodity. Such dehumanisation affects the man’s behaviour, ranging from withdrawal of intimacy through to harsh treatment of women, to outright abuse. Dr Trevor Stammers, a GP who has often written about sexual problems, says most women he counsels whose husbands are into porn claim this has destroyed their marriages. The husband prefers to find sexual release from a computer because this doesn’t require any personal engagement by him. So he chooses physical sensation without love. ‘There is no doubt’, says Dr Stammers, ‘that as a result of using pornography such men become far more callous towards women. What they are seeking from porn is the illusion of power and control over them’.

Research studies back up the suggestion that using pornography badly affects behaviour and relationships. American academics Dolf Zillmann and Jennings Bryant have shown that pornography can diminish a person’s sexual happiness, that it damages beliefs about sexuality and attitudes towards women, and that it desensitises people to rape as a criminal offence. An American survey last year showed that more than 200,000 people were effectively addicted to porn through websites and associated chat-rooms. Victor Cline of the University of Utah has documented how men who become addicted to pornography, begin to want more explicit or deviant material, and end up acting out what they have seen.

Isn’t that to ‘deprave and corrupt’ by any reasonable understanding of those terms? Yet far from being outlawed, porn is becoming mainstream behaviour. Sado-masochism has its own fashionable clubs. In Britain, Sodomy was made legal for women when the age of homosexual consent was reduced to 16yrs; what was once considered an intolerable assault on women, from which the law should protect them, has now become their ‘right.’ And urination during sex - the ‘golden shower’– is even discussed enthusiastically in teen magazines.

Conclusion.

What we once believed righteous has been dethroned by that which we once knew to be evil. A world turned on it's head. The very mention that Christianity, or Islam, are the last bastions of virtue and morality causes the majority of people here in the West to `short circuit, ` and close down. The family unit is an endangered species. How many young men and women today even consider that a life of devotion and duty to each other, as man and wife, and to their would be offspring, as parents, is an end in itself? The whole concept of what was not so long ago taken for granted, has become somehow irrelevant and even to a degree redundant.

By gratuitously portraying immoral and lewd acts, pornography undercuts or sabotages a persons efforts to discern between what is good and what is not. It is nothing less than a loss of God! There is nothing harmless about pornography. It is exploitive and corrupting. It can and increasingly does destroy relationships, perverting the natural expression of sexual intimacy into a voyeuristic activity. It poisons the mind and spirituality of the voyeur. It promotes selfish, greedy attitudes and teaches people to view others as objects fit only to satisfy their lust. It undermines all efforts to do good and maintain a clean conscience.

Truly, pornography is Satan's scourge against mankind, and a major `siege gun` in the Illuminati's plan to dehumanise and depopulate. How far away they are from the setting up of their New World Order with it's `New Feudal` social model and reduced serf class it is hard to say. What is for certain though is that our best hope and defence against this evil scheme is our faith in God and a renewed commitment to the institutions of marriage and family.

For it is surely in these we can begin to build the `fortress` of our resistance.

Reference:

1] http://righteousalliance.blogspot.com/2009/07/who-rules-worldthe-origin-of-evil.html
2] http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_sociopol_depopu.htm
3] http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/bloodlines/index.htm
4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Whiting
5] http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover
6] http://www.google.com/search?q=Dr+Judith+Reisman&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GPEA_enDK310
7] http://www.divorcewizards.com/Divorce-Statistics-Pornography.html

To Kill A Tree Part Three : The Delusional State - Severing The Roots.

By Philip Jones 31st May 2009.

“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 make-up 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 country's 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-centred 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, `Britain's' 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 clichés. 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 party's 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 façade; 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 Britain's 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 (Hegelian-ism). 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 de-constructing 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

Ref:
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