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

To Kill A Tree: Part Two.

By Philip Jones 28th May 2009.

"On the first Feminian Sandstones, we were promised the fuller life, which started by loving our neighbour, and ended by loving his wife. Till our women had no more children, and the men lost reason and faith, and the gods of the copybook heading read, “The Wages Of Sin Is Death.” Rudyard Kipling.

This article is about how the Illuminati, through a multitude of means and `methods` are engaged in a war against the rest of mankind. It is a war unlike any other in human history insomuch as it is being conducted without one of the sides in the conflict knowing about it. One of the major objectives in this war is the culling of the population, some say by as much as 80%. In this series of articles, I will attempt to show how it is being done, and why.

Contrary to what the Globalist Elite of the `Good Club` (see Part One) will have you believe, we are not threatened by overpopulation. We are now suffering from underpopulation. The US birthrate has been cut from 4 down to 2 children per woman, the European and Canadian is 1.5. (We need 2.2 just for replacement.) Russia will see its population plummet from 145 million to 115 million by 2015, and all the other Western nations face the same threat to their posterity. The West is looking down the barrel of a demographic catastrophe which has no precedent in human history, inasmuch as its population is seemingly opting for its own extinction, by its pursuit of a humanistic, hedonistic and sex-obsessed materialistic lifestyle, based on the insidious machinations of Masonic Luciferianism.

"Any society is free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom. The evidence is that it can't do both for more than one generation." Anthropologist J.D. Unwin.

In this, the second part of `To Kill A Tree,` we will look at how the `Power` has used the women's movement to further its agenda, and how, in doing so, it has debased the feminine, alienated women from men, been instrumental in the collapse of the family, and been a major cause in the plummeting birth rate here in the West. We will look at the effects of contraception and abortion, and then, in the next in the series, examine how, on a global scale, women have been the victims of an all-out assault on their persons, via the use of propaganda, pharmaceuticals and other science-based methods which have brought them, mostly unwittingly, into the very eye of the Depopulation Agenda storm.

Feminism:

Feminism and feminists have played a front-line role in the Illuminati's war against humankind. I think I must have been around twenty-three years of age and fresh out of the military when I began to realize that Feminism had very little to do with women's rights. Instead, it appeared to me, even back then, to have more to do with population control. One of the most obvious results of societies adopting feminist ideals is a decline in the birthrate.

In 1990 author Katerina Runske wrote a book entitled `Empty Hearts and Empty Homes,` in which she addressed the inevitable result of the feminist's anti-male anti-marriage rhetoric, along with a damning indictment on abortion:

"Feminism is a Darwinian blind alley. In biological terms, there is nothing that identifies a maladaptive pattern so quickly as a below replacement level of reproduction. An immediate consequence of feminism is what appears to be an irreversible decline in the birthrate. Nations pursue feminist policies at their peril."

With the advent of the welfare state and the promise of a `cradle to grave` social security net, children were no longer regarded as a necessary insurance against want and need in old age. If women earned enough to to gain financial independence, then marriage was no longer essential. And, with contraception made freely available, along with the ever-present backup of abortion waiting in the wings, the modern feminist could behave as immorally as she wished, have as much sex as she wanted, and avoid all those unnecessary complications of being a wife and mother. By `liberating` women and consequently men of the burden of family, the `Illuminists` have in essence made the family redundant. Families as we knew them have begun to disappear and when they go, our civilisation goes with them.

In his article `The Devil's Work,` Henry Makow writes: " Feminism fits the elite's depopulation agenda. Since 1963, when "The Feminine Mystique" was published we have experienced an unprecedented breakdown in the family. More than half of all children are now born out of wedlock; the number of single parent households has tripled. Reproduction requires the most delicate care. In the case of human beings, the female must be prepared for motherhood and honoured for her contribution to society. The male must be shown that the standard of manhood is to provide leadership and sustenance for mother and children. Both mother and father must be able to give their children intellectual and spiritual guidance. Instead, in schools and universities, the tender shoots of feminine sexuality are crushed under the feminist jackboot. Young women are taught that heterosexual sex, marriage and family are inherently oppressive. Homosexuality on the other hand is an act of rebellion that is "chic" and "normal." Friedan's comparison of mothers with the concentration camp inmates is pertinent. Betty Friedan, agent of the elite cabal, has put mothers in the concentration camp. Mothers!? The ultimate aim is genocide. The Elite want the world's population to be much smaller. Can there be any question that this is the devil's work?"

In the sixties, something fundamental occurred which altered the way women viewed their lives and degraded in them the desire to be wives and mothers. That something was `Second Wave Feminism` inspired by the likes of Communists Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem, along with the editor of `Cosmopolitan` magazine, Helen Gurley Brown and Britain's Germaine Greer, all coordinated by the CIA and provably bought and paid for by the Rockefeller Foundation (see Henry Makow's Book `The Cruel Hoax` and the links below). With a new generation hitting the university campuses, these Marxist demagogues in disguise had a fresh and naive crop of young women to mould and manipulate. All restraint seemed to collapse, and a `new` unbiblical gauge for measuring morality appeared in order to justify the explosion in promiscuity and immorality.

Women, having been told by the demagogues that they were `slaves` in their own homes, chose en masse to sell themselves to employers instead, who then used them as little more than `wage slaves` or mere commodities. Rather than fulfil their divinely appointed mission as wives and mothers, both loved and cherished by their husbands and children, women today have been guided into turning their backs on all that was once considered rich and rewarding in exchange for pandering themselves to the `gods` of the marketplace.

In `The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State,` Marx and Engels wrote: " The first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex into public industry and this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society." It is no coincidence that global capitalism today views women as units of production, liberated from husbands, family and home in exactly the same terms as did the two fathers of Communism.

In his article `When men become women and women become men,` the Danish writer Kjeld Heising writes:
“The modern career woman is labour - flexible, change ready, committed and willing to learn. A resource to be utilised, compliant, fitting in easily wherever needed, ready to share a desk with both men and women. As such, she has become the `worker ant` for the global market.”

Contrary to what the `High Priestesses` of Feminism have been propagating for decades, their ideology has not liberated women. It has enslaved them completely. The role of the modern career woman appears to me more akin to that of a `serf,` a `bondwoman,` tied to the state through her taxes, and to her employer through her labour. Somewhere in between, if married, she juggles her remaining `freedoms` between her often neglected husband and her children, parents, and what friends and leisure pursuits she has time for. True freedom is about having control over one's life; the freedom to pursue personal fulfilment through love, joy, creativity and a sense of familial duty. Slaves are there to work! Mothers are free and nurturing souls.

Feminism has caused a huge fracture in society. Young women are kept busy with their education and careers, and they content themselves with the illusion, that there awaits for them, once they have proved that they can be all that they can be, a life of excitement, romance, husband and children. They can have it all, they are told. But it's a marketplace illusion. Many are in reality destroying any chance they may have of finding true happiness through love, marriage and family, by their casual and often promiscuous sexual behaviour and their disrespect for themselves and their bodies.

Young men today are also occupied with their education and career and unfortunately all too often treat women in the same way they do other consumer products: a commodity to be consumed and discarded. They too may also have some far-off non committal idea of someday having a family, but it doesn't run so deeply, and is low down on their list of priorities. Having a good time is the main thing. Most seem to accept their new-found socio-political impotence, and due to an uncertainty of what their role in the great scheme of things is, content themselves with a life of hedonistic irresponsibility. Those who are politically conscious, and there aren't that many, lay the full blame for their emasculation on women, and they hate them for it.. This does not a fruitful generation make.

Henry Makow, in his book `The Cruel Hoax,` explains that Feminism was created in order to destabilise society and create dysfunctional people. Feminism working indirectly on social norms creates isolation, rootlessness, breaks down communities, and denies our nature as men and women. It has been fatal where families and reproduction are concerned. Few if any young women today place a very high priority on being wives and mothers. For years before I had any knowledge of the `Depopulation Agenda,` I had been able to equate the decline in the birth rates here in the West with the so-called `women's movement.` Now I see it for what it truly is: A form of `Final Solution` to what the Illuminati term `the population problem.` But for the moment, let us continue to unravel the Feminist `ball of string.`

Feminists demanded the same `rights` as men. But nature designed men and women differently and a solution to the reproductive issue had to be found. Enter the contraceptive pill, or as Pat Buchanan terms it, `The Suicide Pill Of The West.` First licensed in 1960, 43% of married American women were using it by 1970.

On its website, the UN Population Fund states:

`Forty years after oral contraceptives were first introduced on May 9, 1960, more than 100 million women rely on them, making them the most popular contraceptive method in 78 of 150 surveyed countries, according to a new report from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Outside of China and India, the pill is the most popular contraceptive method, used by some 12% of married women, according to the latest issue of Population Report, the quarterly journal published by the Johns Hopkins Population Information Program. (In China and India family planning programs have emphasized long-term or permanent methods.) Outside Eastern Europe and Asia, an estimated 36% of sexually active unmarried women in developed countries use this method. (For country-by-country statistics on oral contraceptive use, see link http://www.overpopulation.org/birthcon.html).`

Abortion:

As the article on the examiner.com site ( http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-3515-Denver-Political-Issues-Examiner~y2009m5d16-) , that inspired this series maintains, there are now annually 46 million abortions carried out worldwide. For those Danish readers out there, that's the equivalent of 9.2 Denmark's being killed each year. This makes abortion by far the most common and oft performed surgical procedure in modern medicine.

It was in 1973 that the landmark case known in US legal history as Roe v Wade opened the floodgates that have lead us to this most deplorable situation, where innocent human life is regarded as disposable. I do not argue that there are circumstances where abortion may be the only humane recourse, such as in rape cases where the victim falls pregnant. But we have now reached the point where abortion is considered a `failsafe` or a backup to the `Pill` and, what's more, it is being encouraged and used as a major weapon in the global war against populations, causing the wholesale slaughter of the most vulnerable members of our species.

What has made Western women so hostile to the idea of being mothers? Thankfully, when I was born in 1958, in what was regarded back then as a state of illegitimacy, abortion was still regarded not only as a crime, but as a gross act of immorality, otherwise you might not be reading this article. Yet fifteen years later, the US Supreme Court ruling which declared abortion a constitutional right was extolled as a landmark in social progress.

Today, to be `pro life` is regarded by most where I live, at least, as being reactionary and, in the case of a man, sexist. Yet the need to procreate is mankind's most intrinsic and basic instinct, which the Illuminist-backed Feminists and their full entourage of fellow travellers are interfering with; and, as we supposedly `progress ' into this 21st century, we are treading upon very thin ice indeed. To deny our God-given nature, to turn our back on all that is moral and decent is a slippery slope towards oblivion.

A Woman's Right?

Recently I read an emotive story in a British newspaper which caused a very disturbed reaction within me, as it told of a fifteen-year-old girl who had an abortion. The poignant handwritten diary entry in its childish, rounded letters says it all: ‘I had my termination.` Then in brackets underneath: “[killed my baby].`

Through these few words, one can only guess at the turmoil in the mind of this young girl as she struggled to come to terms with what she had done. After noting the event in the impersonal jargon used by the professionals who handled her case, she revealed in simple terms how it actually felt to her. Not a ‘termination,’ but the killing of her baby. Tragic as this was, the really appalling thing was her isolation from her parents. In need of parental guidance and support more than at any time in her life, she had been effectively abandoned to make this decision and cope with its aftermath on her own.

For the doctors who dealt with her had not told her parents on the grounds of ‘patient confidentiality.’ The girl, frightened of what they might say, had said she didn’t want to tell her mother. So her GP, who took a mere 15 minutes to see her, simply referred her on to the hospital which carried out the abortion. The first her mother knew of what had happened was when she read the entry in her daughter’s diary. What have we come to when a girl barely out of childhood herself can have an abortion, a procedure with huge physical, emotional and moral ramifications, without the advice and care of her parents, because they have been deliberately kept in ignorance of what is happening?

On every count, this incident illustrates either a widespread breakdown of responsibility, care and common sense, or a deliberate severing of `roots` by disconnecting the girl from her parents. It also shows how far we have allowed the now commonplace practice of abortion to degrade our own sensibilities. An abortion is traumatic for any woman, let alone a child. It is an event of great significance and difficulty, requiring a balance to be struck between the needs of the mother and respect for the early life she is carrying. When that mother is herself effectively a child, it takes on a further dimension altogether.

Under UK law, a girl under 16 years of age can have an abortion without her parents’ consent, if her GP thinks she is mature enough to make the decision herself. That means understanding the moral, social and emotional implications of what she is about to do. But the teenager’s behaviour in this case illustrates what should be blindingly obvious to anyone with an ounce of compassion or common sense, that such young girls are too immature to make decisions of this kind. The girl has since commented that if her mother had been told, she might have kept the baby.

I cannot help but wonder if there is a conspiratorial aspect to this. Are doctors, when dealing with such matters, aware that there is a hidden conspiracy at the very top to encourage women to choose abortion, or under instruction to bear in mind that if a patient's parents are fully involved in the process, there is more likelihood of the unborn child being kept alive and any planned abortion cancelled?

The girl's parents in this particular case are understandably distraught. As the mother says, she was expected to be by her daughter’s side when she had her tonsils out. Yet when it came to an abortion, with its momentous physical and emotional consequences, she and the girl’s father were deliberately kept out of the loop. They would have supported their daughter if she had decided to have the baby. But instead, says her mother, she herself was made to feel ’so useless’ as a parent. And indeed, one of the worst aspects of this whole business is the undermining of parental responsibility. Although they remain legally responsible for their children’s welfare, parents are seeing their rights taken away and given to their children instead. This deliberately severs a child from her parents by telling her, in effect, that she is now grown-up enough to do without them.

Behind all of this lies the totalitarian Marxist mindset and the belief that children are now in truth the property of the State; and that officialdom knows better than parents how to deal with their children. Instead of parents providing guidance and support, that role is to be performed instead by agents of the State.

In so doing, they replace parental values by their own belief system, and move us ever closer to Huxley's vision of a Brave New World.

`To destroy a people, you must first sever their roots.` Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

Measuring Success:

How many ardent feminists, I wonder, will read the above and say, “It was all worth it and there are always casualties in war.” Make no mistake about it, feminism is not about `women's rights.` It is a war against God, nature, the family and men. Identicality, not equality, is the goal, and they are more than halfway there if present Western societies are the gauge by which success in this war is to be measured.

To be `pro choice` on abortion is today almost the defining mark of the modern woman. Many Feminists regard the phrase `women's liberation` as meaning liberation from all things traditional, including a woman's appearance, along with what they see as being the unrewarding and male-imposed roles of wife and mother. Margaret Sanger, the Feminist `birth mother` of Planned Parenthood and a virulent eugenicist, wrote before the second world war that “ the most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is kill it.” Sanger is an icon of Feminism, and was an open and vocal admirer of Hitler's eugenics program. It is a recorded fact that the eugenics movement was born in the US and in Great Britain, long before Hitler grabbed power in Germany, and, following the end of the war, simply went home again in the shape of the organisation; Planned Parenthood.

The Collapse Of Morality:

The above example of the chaos caused to a young life by the breakdown in the moral order should be reason enough for the reader to stop and look around his or her self and ask the question: “How did we come to this point?” They say you can judge a tree by its fruit. I think it fair to say that the fruits of our new `humanist` lifestyle are very poisonous.

What people consider right and wrong can be more properly determined by how they live their lives than by what they say they believe. That being the case, the old Christian moral order appears mortally wounded. I grew up in a working-class environment back in the sixties and seventies, when divorce was still to a great extent considered a scandal. Cohabitation was looked down upon, abortion thought abhorrent and homosexuality deplored. Today, half of all marriages end in divorce, `relationships` come and go and, to quote Pat Buchanan, “The love that dare not speak its name won't shut up.”

The collapse of marriage and marital fertility appears to be due to a long-term shift away from Christianity and the values it affirms, towards a militant and secular individualism focused on the self. With promiscuity running amok, divorce the norm, the proliferation of pornography and tax payer-funded abortion on a massive scale, (barely considered newsworthy), the world predicted by Pope Paul VI in 1968 in his `Humanae Vitae` is upon us. In his encyclical, the Pope envisioned four consequences of what he termed the `contraceptive mindset:`

1. Widespread infidelity and a lowering of morality.

2. Women would cease to be man's respected and beloved companion, and serve only as an instrument of his selfish enjoyment.

3. It would place a dangerous weapon in the hands of the state, which took no heed of moral exigencies.

4. The treatment of people as mere objects and unborn children akin to a disease to be prevented, resulting in the dehumanisation of the species.

I think it fair to say, as the sad example given above depicts very well, that the Pope's vision was close to prophetic. Our society seems to be progressively stripping out the human-ties of family and parents, trust and responsibility, authority and dependence, and replacing them with an impersonal bureaucracy that seeks to regulate, licence and ultimately control human relationships and what they produce. Throughout history, the surest defence against state control of our personal lives has been the family unit. Slice by slice, this is being dismembered and its roots are being severed.

Ref: `The Death Of The West` by Patrick J. Buchanan

`The Cruel Hoax` by Henry Makow.

http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol6no2/DevlinTOQV6N2.pdf
http://www.heising.dk/content.asp?Id=107
http://www.savethemales.ca/180302.html
http://www.henrymakow.com/000185.html
http://www.henrymakow.com/200202.html
http://www.savethemales.ca/150801.html
http://www.henrymakow.com/130103.html
http://www.gillistriplett.com/rel101/articles/destruction.html
http://www.overpopulation.org/birthcon.html RU-486 - The Abortion Pill.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/030406massculling.htm