Britannia Radio

To Kill A Tree - Part 3
The Delusional State-Severing The Roots
By Philip Jones
6-5-9

 

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