Our lost nation and the end of an era

By Mike Wilson

I grieve from a distance for the death of my native country, England. The country that was at the heart of Western Europe during two thousand years of slow secure growth, resulting in a free and democratic society that was the envy of most of Europe.

The country that gave rise to democratic government that has been copied by every other civilized nation. The country that championed free speech and the freedom of the individual. The country that instilled the love of family and family values. The country that tried to educate and foster knowledge in third world bastions of indifference where speed breeding and poverty were and still are the norm. The country where the love of one’s fellow man has led to its own inescapable ruin.

The German philosopher Nietzsche had said in so many words that the Christian ethic of allowing the meek to inherit the earth would in the end undermine the very fabric of society and ultimately bring about its downfall.

We see now that he was so right yet at the time people were unable to comprehend his argument. Another person who was vilified for professing a similar argument albeit on slightly different lines was Enoch Powell and how right was he?

How have we come to this point in time where every freedom we used to take for granted is now questioned and overturned by an authority that is set to deny us that very freedom for which our fathers and forefathers fought and laid down their lives.

There are several reasons, most of them are interlinked in some way and all have been exposed over time yet none of them have been rallied against, fought against, argued against but all have simply been meekly accepted by the population with absolutely stunning apathy and everyone has been led meekly to the slaughter by the men in white coats.

What are these reasons? Well let’s list some of them:-

1. New World Order.

2. Political Correctness.

3. European Union.

These are the three major areas although there are some sub groups that promote too much hostility to comment on at this point.

So let’s look at the New World Order.

This name seems to have started as a post- Cold War scenario in a speech given by George H W Bush to congress in 1990.

He was pushing for an international government to be run by the United Nations. The UN originated out of work done by the Council on Foreign Relations of which Bush was a member. The vision of the UN founders is clearly globalist. It advocates a shift in sovereignty from the state to the international level thereby doing away with nation states. It seeks to have increased authority, security, and judicial powers of an international body with enhanced social and economic interdependence and some significant level of military disarmament of the nation states.

You will all be aware of just how far this has come since this UN plan was put together by the Council on Foreign Relations.

"We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest." - James Warburg (Rothschild Banking Agent 1950)

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." - David Rockefeller

"The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in England ... (and) ... believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established." - Carroll Quigley, Professor of History Georgetown University, in his book "Tragedy and Hope".

"The interests behind the Bush administration, such as the CFR, the Trilateral Commission - founded by Brzezinski for David Rockefeller - and the Bilderberg Group have prepared for and are now moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years." - Dr. Johannes Koeppl (Former official of the German Ministry for Defence and advisor to NATO)

"The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is dedicated to one-world government, financed by a number of the largest tax exempt foundation (i.e. Rockefeller), and wielding such power and influence over our lives in the areas of finance, business, labour, military, education, and mass communication media, that it should be familiar to every person concerned with good government and with preserving and defending our free-enterprise system. Yet, the nation's right-to-know machinery, the news media; usually so aggressive in exposures to inform our people,  remain silent when it comes to the CFR, its members and their activities. The CFR is the establishment. Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also finances and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high level decisions for converting the US from a sovereign Republic into a servile member of a one-world dictatorship." - Congressman John R. Rarick

The above quotes show that a New World Order is a reality and that the world has changed forever.

More quotes:

It appears that a vampire-like clique directs the world. This secretive cabal is represented by our dominant political, economic and cultural institutions. Western society has been subverted and western culture is bankrupt. Democracy is a form of social control and the mass media/ education are systems for indoctrination.

Essentially the problem boils down to whether we believe man was made in God's image and has an obligation to lift himself to a higher level of truth, beauty and justice. Naturally monopolists have no use for this and want to define reality to suit their own interests. They have taught us that God is dead and man is just a fancy animal without a divine soul. Culture today tends to deny standards, ideals and goals of any kind. Instead, we are fed an endless diet of trivia and degradation.

So now you know why things are as they are on the world scene and why our situation in England has changed so irrevocably over the last 20 years.

But what about closer to home, what about so called racial intolerance, freedom of speech, overzealous policing, black gangs, raping of white women, mass immigration, free housing for ethnics at the expense of the indigenous population and so on? 

So now we need to look at political correctness.

The was originally viewed as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.

First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted “victims” groups that PC revolves around, face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has a history, a history that is much longer than many people are aware of outside a small group of academics who have studied this. And the history goes back, as I said, to World War I, as do so many of the pathologies that are today bringing our society, and indeed our culture, down.

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms , that creates Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s.

Britain today is in the throes of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state. In “hate crimes” we now have people serving jail sentences for political thoughts. And the Parliament is now moving to expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It’s exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it’s coming here. And we don’t recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off. My message today is that it’s not funny, it’s here, it’s growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.

The Frankfurt school recommended (amongst other things):

1. the creation of racism offences

2. continual change to create confusion

3. the teaching of sex and homosexuality to children

4. the undermining of schools and teachers' authority

5. huge immigration to destroy national identity

6. the promotion of excessive drinking

7. emptying the churches

8. an unreliable legal system with bias against the victim of crime

9. dependency on the state or state benefits

10. control and dumbing down of media

11. encouraging the breakdown of the family

Sound all too familiar? Yes - Great Britain 1997 onwards......

(The above excerpts taken from a speech by Bill Lind in February 2000.)

Finally what has the European Union got to do with any of this?

Well, if you think about it the union is simply an extension of the New World order taking its lead from the controllers who manage world affairs. They set up Europe for total control by the commission in Brussels and the commission themselves are controlled in the process.

The European Union is not about cooperation for protecting the best interests of Europeans; it is about turning the entire continent into a Multicultural theme park while the natives get culturally  deconstructed and demographically crushed. The EU is a large-scale social experiment conducted on hundreds of millions of people. It is not about economics of scale, it is about stupidity of scale. The EU system corrupts virtually everybody who comes close to it. It cannot be reformed, it can only be dismantled.

Unfortunately, for our late Great Britain the time has gone when such a dismantling could have occurred.

Now we of the older generation can only look on in dismay as the indoctrination of the younger generation spreads its insidious web throughout the whole of society. The government will only be able to rest easily once we have all gone and the people who take our place will have no knowledge of our glorious past only their own history formed of pre-digested facts fed to them by their masters.

So I can still grieve for what was and what has been lost, but the grief is only mine – and once I am gone and those of my generation who will remember the great nation that we used to be?

Switzerland under pressure

If the British public ever paused to take notice of anything other than the X-Factor, this week’s Soap operas or the latest developments in the unappetising saga of Tiger and the three skanks, (UPDATE: Make that eleven skanks) they might notice that some very troubling events are taking place amongst our allies across the channel, and indeed elsewhere.

The first of these relates to the aftermath of the recent referendum in Switzerland, where 57.5% of Swiss voters voted in favour of a proposal banning the building of Islamic minarets. The result confounded pollsters, who had predicted the proposal would be defeated, and who were clearly put out that the Swiss people had seen through their efforts to influence the result.

The result shows why politicians are so reluctant to allow the public to vote on specific issues, instead of the carefully selected handful of innocuous, crowd pleasing but meaningless promises which make up the average election manifesto. No British government has permitted a referendum in the last 34 years, and the Swiss minaret vote will have convinced them of what they will have seen as the “wisdom” of that position.

Predictably the result has caused outraged amongst the ranks of the perpetually offended and the professional surrender monkeys in international politics, the media and at the head of the Christian churches. In the midst of the inevitable cries of “racism”, accusations of intolerance and the usual and, as they always are, unsubstantiated claims about increased attacks on mosques, the occasional notes of calm common sense have provided some relief. One example being the entertaining letter in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald. After the usual 'shocked' and outraged letters on religious tolerance the reply in the letters page was a very brief one-liner. The writer simply asked whether some spokesperson from the Saudi and Iranian embassies would be so kind as to explain their nation's policy regarding building regulations for synagogues and churches, and detail how they have been implemented over the past two decades and how many have been built.

However, there have also been some very sinister noises amongst the squeaking, baying and clucking of the usual suspects. Amnesty International for one have declared that the referendum result is illegal and will have to be overturned either by the Swiss Supreme court or by the European Court of Human Rights . Meanwhile voices from within that bastion of ethical democracy the United Nations, have been making similar statements, whilst another paragon of Human rights, Turkey, has been calling on the Swiss government to “correct” the result.

Let us be clear about this, those voices are not talking about some new law passed by a government which infringes some international law, they are talking about an overwhelming democratic vote by a sovereign people. By suggesting that a national plebiscite can be corrected, or overturned by their institutions if it does not produce the desired result, demonstrates the contempt with which such people view democracy.

Of course, we have seen this before with the Irish vote on the Lisbon Treaty, where it appeared the government were prepared to keep forcing the public to vote until they got the answer “right”. Prior to that, the previous votes cast by both the French and the Dutch were effectively disregarded when the EU leaders merely changed the word Constitution to Lisbon Treaty and carried on regardless.

However, even with that travesty, nobody actually went so far as to suggest that there was a court higher than the democratic vote of a sovereign nation which could overturn their will. Ironically this solution was first muted by an organisation allegedly dedicated to the opposition of tyranny, however, like most left wing lobby groups Amnesty International are very selective as to the tyrannies they oppose and those they are happy to snuggle up with.

That the high ranking individuals within the United Nations, not to mention the EU would appear to take a similar view suggests that their self proclaimed passionate dedication to the right of self determination extends only to certain nations in selected continents. One would have to also ask that if Switzerland is in contravention of international law how can Saudi Arabia which entirely bans the building of churches, synagogues and temples possibly not be?

If this result were overturned by a court or international body, rather than by a further referendum, this would be an outrageous and very dangerous precedent, as it would signify the end of democracy and of national self determination in any meaningful way. What next? Regime change by tribunal?

However, we have to ask to what extent this has already come to pass, a devastating analysis by Prof, Anthony Coughlan in Monday’s Brussels Journal describes in chilling detail what the Lisbon Treaty, which Prof. Coughlan describes as “a constitutional revolution by stealth” has actually brought about. I strongly recommend that you read Anthony Coughlan’s powerful article, and I would like to thank Mister Fox for bringing it to my attention.

I recently had an e-mail exchange with regular and highly valued commentator and good friend Dr D, in which I expressed a positive view of Europe. I am certainly less antagonistic to Europe than many of my contemporaries. I am British, I blog from Britain and will vote for the BNP, however, I believe it is equally vital that we seek to preserve and protect the native European race, both in Europe and their descendants in such places as North America, Australia, New Zealand and of course South Africa. To a spectacularly overwhelming degree most things good and worthwhile came from Europe, that is not to say that we are better than anyone else, but we are a great people, and a people who are worth saving.

I believe it is essential for the European peoples to form strong alliances between ourselves and adopt a unified approach to a common and very serious threat. In this respect I am delighted that the BNP have formed alliances with other nationalist groups as we have interests and needs in common, we share a common Christian heritage and culture and we most surely face a common danger.

However, as far as the EU is concerned it is becoming very clear that what has been created is a malevolent leviathan which does not have the true welfare of the European peoples at its heart. Indeed, in the way that it is now formed, and most evidently in its approach to immigration, it is clear that its aim is to minimise and maybe even destroy the very concept of a European nation state.

Do its aims in fact go well beyond even that? It is telling to note the recent comments by our recently appointed president the disarmingly Yoderish Herman Van Rompuy in which he compared decisions taken at the Climate Change talks in Copenhagen as the first evidence of world government in action. I am not clear as to whether he was referring to the fact that various African states have just voted that we should give them lots of money, but if he was, that would not come as a huge surprise to many of those reading here.

I am not going to enter into discussion on climate change, as the comments it would generate would overwhelm the points I am seeking to make. However, right or wrong the issue has the potential to be misused to serve a political agenda as well as an environmental one.

What better way than to use the treat of potential global catastrophe, real or imagined, to achieve global aims in the same way that international migration has been used for the same purpose in recent decades?

Some may feel that I attribute to much importance to this matter. It is true that what has happened this week is a minor detail in an ongoing struggle, however its outcome may be very significant indeed. Switzerland is an independent democratic nation, it is not part of the European megalodon yet its people have acted in a manner which the forces currently governing our planet do not approve of, and it is being made clear that this will not be tolerated, it remains to be seen what will be done about that.

If the Swiss vote stands it is a huge achievement for democracy, independence and national sovereignty. If it does not stand, then it is further evidence that those things which all nations once held dear, democracy, nation, people and indeed our very freedom is at greater risk now than it has ever been in our history. Will our people put their Ipods down long enough to notice though?

_____________________
Hat Tip: Mister Fox