by Philip Jones

May-June 2009

from Rense Website

Part 1


The saying goes thus:

"To kill a tree, sever its roots", or as the Russian philosopher Alexander Solzhenitzyn put it: "To destroy a people, you must first sever their roots",

...and that is precisely what has been done to our societies here in the West.


How does one sever a people's roots? First you destroy its memory of itself through rewritten history, then you depopulate it.

The Usual Suspects

Two days ago on May 26th, the Times Online published a report entitled "Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation. America's richest people meet to discuss ways of tackling a 'disastrous' environmental, social and industrial threat".


The article went on to say that,

"Some of America's leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world's population and speed up improvements in health and education. The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.


Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America's wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey."

Many of you reading this will be familiar with the term 'Depopulation Agenda.'


I had already begun composing this article when the above story hit the headlines, which makes what I am about to write all the more relevant and necessary. There is a wealth of information out there on this subject, and here in this article I can only begin to 'scratch the surface' of what is a deeply involved and complex aspect of the plan for a 'New World Order.'


In this and the essays which follow, I shall attempt to put the pieces of the puzzle together, join the dots if you will, and illustrate how many diverse and seemingly unconnected factors are in fact interlinked, and are being used by a nefarious cabal of Luciferians, of which the above named 'Philanthropists' are most certainly members, in order to cull a large percentage of the global population.

A day or so back, I was skimming through the headlines on Rense when one in particular grabbed my attention. It read "Annually 46 Million Abortions Worldwide" (Annually-46-million-abortions-worldwide-Catholic-Church) . The sheer scale of this legalized and socially accepted mass murder of innocents is bewildering and difficult to consume. In all of nature, no other animal intentionally destroys its young in this way and in such overwhelming numbers.

Although now global in scale, this destructive trend has been accelerating here in in the West since the 1960's, and combined with a plethora of other methods all intended to reduce human reproduction, has resulted in a below-replacement level birthrate in all the so-called developed nations. In Europe, for instance, only Muslim Albania is reproducing itself.


The question begs to be asked, why are Western women having fewer children than their mothers or often now none at all? Women in the West have had access to contraception for many decades, and also to legal abortion for over thirty years, but unlike Chinese women, they have the choice. No law compels them to abort their unborn offspring.


Yet these women are terminating their pregnancies at a rate which Senator Patrick James Buchanan, in his book, 'The Death Of The West,' rightly terms 'Autogenocide.'

So why are children no longer valued as they once were? What brought about this paradigm shift in the hearts and minds of men and women, to turn their backs on their own posterity?


As I have written above, in this and the following articles I will attempt to prove my assertions that there is a deliberate culling of the global population underway, and that a Cabal of Luciferians known as the Illuminati is responsible for the deaths of millions upon millions of innocents, and for the wreckage that we term human civilization.

In this first part, we will look at the cold reality of the demographic situation along with the intentional undermining of western culture.

The Demographics

The 'Old World' is dying. Its nations have seemingly 'given up the ghost' and ceased reproducing.


Now, in this first decade of the 21st Century, the traditional genetic makeup of the populations in Europe, America, Australia, Canada and New Zealand have stopped growing and are in steep decline. In Denmark, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Russia, there are now more burials than births.

In 1960, people of European Ancestry accounted for a quarter of the earth's population, numbering around 750 million of the 3 billion alive at the time. While the global population has since then more than doubled, Europeans and their overseas cousins have stopped reproducing sufficiently to ensure continuation of their line.


The forecast is not pretty either. In 'The Death Of The West,' we read that between now and mid-century, the world population will grow to over 9 billion people, but this 50% increase will come entirely from Asia, Africa and South America while, at the same time, 100 million people of European Stock will vanish unreplaced.


Put another way, as the West declines, the population in the developing world adds 100 million people every fifteen months. That's like forty more Mexicos by 2050, while in Europe alone, the equivalent of Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Sweden, Norway and Germany will have ceased to exist.

Western peoples today constitute only a sixth of the global populace, and, by 2050, this figure is expected to be closer to one tenth.


As Sen. Buchanan writes,

"These are the statistics of a vanishing race."

The Western nations and Europe in particular are facing a stark and unpleasant mathematical reality.


If we accept that the likelihood of Western women developing a desire to have large families is zero, and we wish to maintain the current ratio of around 4.8 workers for every senior citizen, then the choice lies between ever higher taxation, or massive immigration from the developing world on a culturally destructive scale.


Either option will change the way we and our children (if we have any) live in perpetuity.

The Secret War

"And ye shall be left few in numbers, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude; because thou wouldst not obey the voice of the Lord thy God."

Deuteronomy XXVIII : 28 KJV.

For decades now, demographers have been warning of an impending demographic disaster in the 'developed world,' but there haven't been too many ready to listen. Western governments, even though fully aware of the catastrophe approaching their nations, have either hidden the facts from their people, or downplayed the forecasts as being exaggerated or even erroneous. But we have now reached that point in time where the mathematics speak for themselves.

In 2007, the United Nations casually proclaimed the seemingly inevitable 'Death of the West' which it expected to occur by mid century:

"The world population is expected to grow by 3 billion more by 2050, the UN Population Division reports. Africa and Asia will be the home of almost all the world's people, with Europe dwindling to a tiny minority. In 2050, 90% of the world's population will live in the Third World... the population of Africa is expected to triple in the next 50 years."

Many here in the West reading this will perhaps breathe a sigh of relief and look forward to a time without overcrowded cities and traffic jams.


They will reason that since they do not live in the Third World but in Europe, North America, Australia etc. that the issue does not concern them.


But it does, and the former UN Population Division director Joseph Chamie outlined why in graphic detail when the 2001 report was first published:

"The policies of Europe will have to change, since it will have to pay for the costs of this population growth and cannot be allowed not to share its wealth with the growing number of poor in the world.


Chamie noted that there will be declining countries which become dependent on migrants to sustain their economy... In 1950, Europe was 22% of the world population, Africa 8%. In 2050, Africa will be three times as populous as Europe.


Without accelerated migration, by 2003, total European population will start its final, catastrophic contraction. By 2050, the population of Ukraine is expected to fall by 40%, Russia by 27%, and Italy by 25%."

The European Commission joined in with its own 'doomsday' statement when it appealed for an end to the 'fortress Europe' policy and encouraged Europeans to embrace racial pluralism and admit a controlled flow of legal immigrants each year.


The German Institute of Economic Research has warned Germans that the country will have to accept a major increase in immigration if it hopes to avoid a crippling long-term labor shortage. It said that net immigration would soon have to be pegged at more than 600,000 annually.

Most of us have learned in schools and universities that World War II was fought in the cause of democracy, liberalism, and equality. But since the end of that most terrible of human events, another war has been raging, not against any great military adversary, but against humankind in general and the people of the West in particular.

Almost immediately after hostilities ceased, a massive program of "re-education" was imposed on the victors and the victims alike.


The public and social institutions of the Western world, now firmly controlled by the architects of "equality," began a campaign of social engineering that laid waste to the cultural awareness of Europeans and their cousins abroad. In this new campaign, there was no neutral territory. Nothing escaped its merciless 'scorched earth' policy.


No aspect of our history, culture, or science was left untouched, or not twisted and turned inside out by the proponents of "democracy, liberalism, and equality."

Our self appointed inquisitors taught us that there was not a single achievement of our culture and people that was worthy of being left in situ. In this all-out onslaught against Western consciousness, the so called "moral authorities" enlisted the support of our youth and turned them against us. In London, the premier Illuminati agency of human manipulation and control, the Tavistock Institute, in concert with the Intelligence Agencies and the Frankfurt School's Marxist 'thinkers' instigated the student revolts of the 1960's, which dealt a series of fatal blows to Western culture.


Bombarded with Cultural Marxist Neo-Communist ideas, pseudo-psychology (based on the Kabbalah), Eastern New Age spirituality and adolescent idealism, a generation of Western youth rebelled against the "establishment" and joined ranks with the enemies of our people - all supposedly in the cause of "democracy, liberalism, and equality."


The impact of this 'movement', which rejected virtually all our Christian values, on the Western world cannot be overemphasized.

The sixties generation began what Antonio Gramsci, a pre-war Italian Marxist whose radical anti-western ideas had by then been externalized in society, termed the "Long March Through the Institutions".


It is the descendants of this generation who having seized all the major positions of social influence, have knowingly and willingly directed and controlled the Auto genocide being perpetrated against their own people.

"Destroy the family and you destroy society."


One of the primary tenets of Marxism is the eradication of the nuclear family, and it is no coincidence that a major thrust of the 'sixties cultural revolution' was directed against the family, the very soul of nations and communities.


Subsequently, all aspects of that traditional and most natural core of the human condition have been attacked and vilified throughout all avenues of education and information. Can anyone remember the last time they saw a film which extolled marriage and family values? Make no mistake here, all the ridicule, derision and hatred directed towards matrimony and child-rearing was and is a major part in the play called 'The Depopulation Agenda'.


It is irrefutable that our present sorry condition in which women reject motherhood, children often know only one parent, and only homosexuals it seems are attracted by marriage, was carefully prepared by the engineers who planned and plotted their long-term strategy for the culling of our population.


Destroy the nucleus of society, and society will fall apart.

Destroy The Culture

They told us that after centuries of imperialism and colonialism by European powers, the non-White peoples have accumulated so many grievances that we supposedly have a "moral obligation" for turning over vast proportions of our wealth to them by means of foreign aid.


The reasoning is that our high standard of living only came into being due to the "manifold crimes" our ancestors allegedly perpetrated against the rest of mankind. The paradox to this is that without an ever increasing influx of immigrant labour into our countries, due to the calamitous drop in the birth rate here in the West, our bloated welfare systems will all but collapse in the near future.


Unless we experience some form of miraculous turnaround and soon, the only way by which our taken for granted high standard of living can be sustained is by the contributions of immigrants from the Third World.

But there is counter side to this. As ever more people from vastly different cultures to our own arrive, set up home and form communities of their own, our own way of life becomes diluted.


Many in the West have grave misgivings regarding what amounts to a human tidal wave crashing upon our shores. Yet our politicians seem totally impotent, or even negligent in finding a solution and persist in what they tell us to believe is the only recourse available to them: Mass Immigration.


Any questioning, request for open debate or opposition to this "reasoning" is summarily dismissed and denounced as "racism and bigotry."


Several European countries, plus Canada, have even penalized the public expression of disagreement to "diversity" - just like Jean Raspail predicted in his 1973 novel The Camp of the Saints.

Survival Of The Fittest?

If we accept that the thesis of 'Natural Selection' provides for the survival of those who struggle for it, not for those who take it for granted.


That immigrants seize the opportunities provided to them is both reasonable and understandable. The evil lies not with those coming here to seek a better life, but with those eternal adversaries of humankind, the Luciferian Illuminists, who have planned, orchestrated and also seemingly conditioned the European race into mild acceptance of it's own its extinction.


They, the schemers and movers behind the scenes, have declared war on us, as we in the West were seen as the biggest obstacle to their plans.


In her 1979 pamphlet, 'A World Coup Is Planned,' Dr. Kitty Little writes:

"By 1963, the UN Convention on Racial Discrimination had provided for the massive movements of population that would in turn provide for the interbreeding of culturally incompatible peoples, and for the positive discrimination against the native populations of European decent who were considered to be the greatest obstacle to their plans.


A parallel UNESCO Convention against 'discrimination' in education had provided the impetus for race, sex, parentage, local and national loyalties and all denominations of religion as well as ability, to be regarded as forms of 'discrimination' and therefore to be abolished. Children were deemed to have a 'human right' to be protected from religious indoctrination.


All this, in addition to the encouragement of oral contraceptives (that lead to physical, mental and moral degeneration), vasectomy, drug abuse, and the current fashion for genetic engineering with artificial insemination and 'test tube' babies, was designed for the debasing of the white race".

It is the Illuminists, in utter thrall as they are to their 'Dark Lord,' who have plotted the demise of Western man.


After two fratricidal wars that pitched European nation against European nation, both instruments in their own way of driving humanity towards world government, they then turned on the civil populations of the west by manipulating the decline in birthrates.


They achieved their goals within the space of barely half a century, using a multitude of means (to be dealt with more fully later), thereby creating the situation where it is now necessary for the nations of the West to import huge numbers of immigrants in order to maintain the greatest means of ensuring human dependency ever invented: the Welfare State!

Payback Time?

The great majority of immigrants who arrive at the borders of the West do so looking for a better life for themselves and their families.


But there are among them a small minority of politically motivated stooges, mesmerized by carefully crafted stories at home of past colonial oppression, all carefully calculated to instill as much resentment as possible, creating a form of "reverse colonialism." They do not come looking for "democratic freedoms" -- they come for plunder and pillage (in a manner of speaking).


The First World is attractive to the Third World for one reason only: our out of control materialism and consumerism.


Our middle-class standard of living appears, to such people, a luxurious lifestyle they can only dream of, and they reason: why shouldn't they get a 'piece of the pie' too?

About 90% of all illegal immigrants who pour into Western nations do so to escape poverty. However, in effect they are bringing their own poverty with them.


Harvard economist George Borjas writes that,

"the present wave of immigrants is less educated and at an income level lower than was the case of previous immigrants." ...

The net effect, he says, is that we are currently "importing poverty."


With the economic and social conditions in the Third World deteriorating ever more, and the United Nations calling on the Western countries to open their borders, immigration into the First World will become an avalanche in the future and will wreak havoc on our economic and social conditions.

The 2000 Census in the USA showed Hispanic and Asian populations were the fastest growing groups in the country, and for the first time, nearly half of the nation's 100 largest cities are home to more Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and other minorities than Whites. Have a look at these inner city areas where "diversity" runs rampant, and then dare to question the destructive and disintegrative consequences we are facing. And much of this is courtesy of the "liberals" who have themselves moved to wealthy neighborhoods long ago!

Our unique civilization is at stake, yet the Illuminati-controlled media and our 'elected' governments either ignore this peril or behave as if there is no problem. Of course, those at the top of the pile know exactly what the plan is, and, to them it must seem as if everything's going exactly according to plan. Back down on planet earth, nobody has the courage it seems to confront women in the West with this one issue alone: Unless they start conceiving children and lots of them, our civilization will vanish.


European civilization is the engine of progress in the world. With our civilization gone, the Malthusian principle will most assuredly catch up with the rest of mankind.


"Diversity" means the death of the West, but this death will not be limited to us. At least this much can be predicted.

The show will be over once we become a minority in our own lands, which mathematically seems guaranteed absent divine intervention. It will then be only a matter of time until the forces of disintegration have finished their destructive work and erased all traces of Western civilization. That not only can, but will, happen to our nations once Western peoples, by virtue of the democratic process, lose their political power to the newcomers.

The death of the West is imminent. It is a bitter irony that those men who went to war against the Axis powers during WWII earnestly believed it would be they who prevented the death of the West. Instead, they were being used as mere pawns to bring about the beginning of the end of Western culture and civilization, and then, to add salt to the wound, their children were enlisted in the counter culture of the sixties which continued the death blows.

There can be no doubt about the grave danger our civilization and nations have been maneuvered into. It is a danger that has been spelled out by every institution dealing with population growth. If current trends persist, after 2050, the native population in the West will gradually shrink and become a minority.. This is a danger that can only be faced collectively.

In order to avert this calamity, our welfare states must be dismantled, and the traditional family restored to its rightful and premier place as the bedrock of society. The ideology of feminism has to be recognized as the 'siege gun' and a primary agent agenda for our race's auto genocide, and then universally refuted and denounced.


The only social construct that protects and nurtures human beings is the nuclear family unit and thereafter, that of the extended family, whereby children learn from not only their parents, but their grandparents, aunties and uncles also. The passing down of knowledge and tradition in this way kept people grounded and gave a sense of natural belonging and security. This is the divine God-given order of the world.


The violators of this order are enemies of mankind who not only want the European race to perish, but want every indigenous population on earth to perish along with it.



4. Essential Reading!!
5. 'The Death Of The West' by Senator Patrick James Buchanan,
6. Frankfurt School
10. Be Wise As Serpents ­ Fritz Springmeier. Today, psychiatrists, our primary recognized authorities on people, are taught principles that are derived from the teachings of theSatanic Sabbatai. Freud took his ideas from the Zohar and some of the ideas of the Sabbatai. It might surprise some people that Freud got his ideas from the Satanic Jewish sect of Frankist-Illuminati. The depraved behavior of the Frankist-Illuminati was the beginning of what has become the everyday perversions of the ungodly American Society. Psychiatrists using Freud's teachings have been granted unquestioned power over many people lives.


Part Two

'On the first Feminian Sandstones, we were promised the fuller life, which started by loving our neighbor, 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 above) 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 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, <Feminism v. Mankind>', 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 civilization 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 honored 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 Rockerfeller Foundation (see Henry Makow's Book 'The Cruel Hoax').


With a new generation hitting the university campuses, these Marxist demagogues in disguise had a fresh and naive crop of young women to mold 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 fulfill 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 utilized, 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 fulfillment 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 behavior 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 newfound 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 destabilize 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'


As the article on the site, 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 travelers 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 behavior 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 Solzhenitzyn

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 organization: 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, he 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, license and ultimately control human relationships and what they produce.


Throughout history, the surest defense 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.


  • 'The Death Of The West' by Patrick J. Buchanan

  • 'The Cruel Hoax' by Henry Makow.









  • RU-486 - The Abortion Pill.



Part 3
The Delusional State-Severing The Roots

"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past".

George Orwell.

In this, the third part in the series, 'To Kill A Tree,' we will take a closer look at how through various means and methods, the Illuminati are, in parallel with their depopulation agenda, working towards the deconstruction of the nation states of the West, by disconnecting people from their roots, and diluting the ethnic makeup of countries through mass immigration, thereby weakening the resolve of populations to oppose the trend towards internationalism.


We will also examine how the Illuminists and their Marxist, humanist, socialist 'lackeys,' have worked towards breaking down Western civilization and tradition, by the rewriting of history and the defamation of national heroes.

To challenge the concept that large scale immigration is beneficial to the West is to risk being labeled 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 realized, 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 labeled 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 radicalized, '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 destabilize western society.


They had much less impact in Europe, where institutions remained robust enough to mount a solid defense, 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 programs of child-centered education, extreme feminism and minority 'victim' rights coming across the 'pond.'


In Britain, a State monopoly over schools and universities meant there was no challenge to these ideas, which aimed to disconnect citizens from the traditions and established values of the nation. When faced with this rout, the established church merely wrung its hands and screamed, "No Mas," then dutifully followed suit.


As a result, the three pillars of national identity; family, education and church crumbled.

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 Civilization, 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 Organization 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 Civilization is systematically destabilized. There has been a counter reaction against this trend, mostly by small countries, such as the Denmark and Holland, who have adopted what can only be termed a 'siege mentality,' as the world at large closes in around them, and waves of immigrants breach the walls of their once homogeneous citadels.


In the US, the 'war' rages between rival camps supporting either trans-nationalism or democracy. Amazingly, the British haven't even grasped there is a battle to be fought.


According to Philosopher Roger Scruton, the British are sleep walking into the likely to be European Federal State,

"in which national loyalty will be no more significant than support for a local football team."

The outcome, he says, will be despotism and anarchy.

We can see the writing on the wall already. In 1996, Greenwich council in London, produced a report in response to the murders of Stephen Lawrence and two other local black boys. One of the principal reasons for the murderous rage of white youths, it said, was that they had no national identity to be proud of and to give their lives meaning.


White children, in the UK, it said,

'seem like cultural ghosts, haunting as mere absences the richly decorated corridors of multicultural society.'

In her article, 'Britains' Social Suicide,' the journalist Melanie Phillips writes:

"People may also have several identities, like Russian dolls stacked inside each other. But ultimately, they have to have common bonds; and these depend on a common culture, which requires controlled migration."

Reconstructing the Past

"History is the lie commonly agreed upon."


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."

In practice, Critical Theory works like this:

  • The Marxist repeats the charge that the West is responsible for injuring and harming every civilization 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 vandalizing 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 vandalized.


  • 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 honoring 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 demoralized 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 savior 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 facade; the 'drama' to be played out before the masses, was to create a more inclusive, kind and just society, ostensibly by eradicating prejudice, reshaping the country in his own image, whilst in reality, he worked tirelessly and treacherously towards the ushering in of a New World Order.

Accordingly, 'his' government either directly promoted or did nothing to stop the long march through Britain's institutions, the systematic undermining of the country's fundamental values and traditions, in line with the 'Cultural Marxism' strategy of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci.


It tore up Britain's (unwritten) constitution, devolved power to Scotland and Wales, and changed the composition of the the House of Lords, thereby destroying the delicate equilibrium of the balance of power.

It also set about changing the identity of the country. Promoting the doctrine of multiculturalism, it opened Britain's doors to mass immigration. In the state-controlled schools, teachers no longer saw their role as the transmission of Britain's historic culture, which was deemed 'racist'; accordingly, children were no longer taught the history of their country, but instead a concept of 'citizenship' which was all about changing the values of the country. It undermined marriage, promoting instead 'lifestyle choice' by giving incentives to single mothers and morally legitimizing single parenthood.

Barrack Obama has spoken about remedying what he sees as those failings in the U.S. Constitution which promote only 'negative liberties,' or put another way, freedom from something, rather than having positive rights to something.


Through it's adoption of human-rights legislation, Britain has exchanged its historic concept of 'negative" liberty,' that everything is permitted unless it is actively prohibited, for the 'positive' European idea that only what is codified is to be permitted. As a result, freedom has shrunk to what ideology permits.

Equality legislation has created a 'victim culture' under which the interests of all groups deemed to be powerless (minorities, women, homosexuals etc.) take precedence over those deemed to be powerful (white Christian men). Since this doctrine holds that the 'powerless' can do no wrong while the 'powerful' can do no right, injustice is thus institutionalized, and anyone who queries the preferential treatment afforded such groups finds his or herself vilified as being a racist or a bigot, or both.

All this constitutes a fundamentally illiberal culture in which dissent is disallowed, and where divide and rule and intellectual intimidation become the order of the day. In the US, not surprisingly, this also happens to be the culture of ACORN, one of the radical groups funded by the Annenberg Challenge and Woods Fund, and the 'educational' or criminal justice ideas of William Ayers, naturally endorsed by President Barrack Obama.

In the same way that British Liberals and Fabians promote the 'powerless' as being incapable of doing wrong at home, they do likewise with regards to the third world. These self appointed agents of change recognize Obama as one of their own.


That is because 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 civilized 'engagement' with an enemy, to discuss grievances and then reach compromises (Hegelianism). Of course transnational progressivism, multiculturalism, victim culture, pacifism and all the rest of it amount to little more than cultural and national suicide. The reason Britain has embraced these dogmas is because, since the end of WWII, and the ostensible loss of Empire, it has lost belief in itself as a nation and so has been systematically deconstructing its values and breaking down its own defenses.

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 realize 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




One of the most ominous events of modern history is quietly unfolding. Social scientists and economists agree - we are headed toward a demographic winter which threatens to have catastrophic social and economic consequences. The effects will be severe and long lasting and are already becoming manifest in much of Europe.

A groundbreaking film, Demographic Winter - Decline of the Human Family, reveals in chilling soberness how societies with diminished family influence are now grimly seen as being in social and economic jeopardy.

Demographic Winter draws upon experts from all around the world - demographers, economists, sociologists, psychologists, civic and religious leaders, parliamentarians and diplomats. Together, they reveal the dangers facing society and the worlds economies, dangers far more imminent than global warming and at least as severe.

Official website:







Return to The Illuminati

Return to Temas / Sociopolitica