Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What is Free
A: Free Britain Now (FBN) is an association of concerned citizens
who are alarmed and dismayed by the direction in which things are going in
Britain, Europe and the world.
Q: What are Free Britain Now’s aims?
A: FBN aims to identify the main problems in our society as well
as their causes and encourage political debate and action with a view to
finding and implementing the necessary solutions.
Q: What are these
problems and their causes?
A: Analysis of public opinion as
well as our own observations show that the main
problems are immigration, multiculturalism and Islamisation.
Mass immigration leads to loss of control
over territory and resources and results in the partial or total
replacement of the original indigenous population.
Multiculturalism, or the imposition of
cultural diversity at the expense of traditional British culture, leads to
the erosion and destruction of the latter.
Islamisation, or the promotion of Islamic
religion and culture at the expense of Christianity, leads to domination by
Islam and conversion of British society to that religion.
As to causes, our researches have shown
that all of the above developments are being promoted by financial
interests and their political collaborators for their own agenda.
These interests are linked by a left-wing
ideology aiming to monopolise financial, economic and political power.
Their ideology can be identified as Socialism, a political system
advocating state control and world government.
In short, Socialism can be identified as
the cause of the above problems.
Q: Do any other
political groups agree with the above conclusion?
A: The Labour Party’s
destructive policies in 1997-2010, such as state-enforced mass immigration,
multiculturalism, public overspending and rising national debt, have opened
many people’s eyes, helping them to see Labour’s true colours. Most Britons do not trust
Labour on key issues like immigration and the economy.
Of course, not everybody may be aware that
Labour is a Socialist party, but many have identified Labour’s
policies as detrimental to this country, its people and its culture and
some have correctly identified these policies as Socialist.
leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), has described all the
established political parties in the UK (Labour, Liberal Democrats and
Tories) as “social democratic”
(BBC News, 7 Oct. 2006). While it may seem strange to refer to the
Conservative Party as “Social Democratic” or
“Socialist,” the fact is that the Socialism promoted by Labour
and the Fabian masterminds behind it has
infiltrated society to such an extent that it has penetrated other parties
which are not consciously Socialist. Identifying these parties or their
policies as Social Democratic or Socialist amounts to identifying Socialism
as the cause: if these
parties’ Socialist policies are responsible for the situation we are
in, then Socialism is the cause to the problem.
Social Democracy or Socialism have anything good to offer?
A: It depends on what kind of
Socialism or Social Democracy we are talking about. Essentially, there are
two fundamentally opposed Socialisms: (1) an imaginary “benign”
Socialism which promises a utopian paradise on earth and (2) the actual
Socialism on the ground which promises paradise on earth solely in order to
advance the agenda of vested interests.
The Socialist-inspired obsession with the
flaws of other systems such as Capitalism, Nazism and Fascism has only
served to whitewash, obscure or cover up the crimes of actual Socialism,
resulting in an abnormal situation where Socialism is left off the hook and
never subjected to rigorous scrutiny.
However, as soon as we do subject Socialism
to closer scrutiny, it becomes difficult to see how concentration camps and
genocide (as seen in Socialist countries like Soviet Russia and Communist
China), or population replacement (as currently experienced in countries
dominated by Socialism, like Britain and America), can be of benefit to the
If to this we add soaring national debt,
loss of cultural and ethnic identity, growing state control and other
negative features associated with Socialism, we can see that they far
outweigh anything “good” Socialism might have to offer.
In sum, Socialism may well have some good
things about it, but this applies to all
systems. The question is not whether a pill tastes sweet but whether it is
beneficial or harmful to the person who takes it. Likewise, the question is
not whether Socialism has anything good to offer but whether, on the whole,
Socialism is good or bad for society. The critical analysis of Socialism
shows that Socialism is more bad than good.
Q: Can Socialism
really be blamed for all the problems in our society?
A: Socialism can be blamed for all
problems created or compounded by Socialist ideology and policy.
For example, policies such as unrestricted
mass immigration leading to population replacement and multiculturalism
leading to the destruction of traditional British culture can certainly be
traced to Labour - a Socialist party.
In their turn, mass immigration from Muslim
countries and multiculturalism (the promotion of cultural and religious
diversity in favour of Muslim religion and culture) have
led to the Islamisation of British society.
As admitted by Labour Shadow
Chancellor Sadiq Khan, “Labour is, and has always been the Party of
British Muslims” (“Khan:
Labour’s the only way forward for British Muslims,” Left Foot Forward, 3 May 2010).
British Muslims would not choose Labour as their party if Labour did not
promote Muslim interests. Promoting Muslims and Muslim interests, religion
and culture, amounts to promoting the spread of Islam and its domination of
The same applies to the general
breakdown of society thanks to Labour’s anti-family policies and
dysfunctional Labour-dominated education system; the destruction of British
economy thanks to Labour’s Socialist policies of public overspending,
Q: What are the origins of Socialism?
A: Socialism is an offshoot of
Liberalism. The growth of trade, commerce and industrial production, as
well as international finance in the 1600s and 1700s brought important
changes to Western European society, notably the rise of a wealthy and
powerful middle class consisting of merchants, industrialists and civil
To advance its interests, the middle class
initiated a new social and political movement known as Liberalism which
promoted “liberty” and “equality” to increase
middle class power in relation to the aristocracy.
At the same time, the middle class itself
came under pressure from the growing class of industrial workers who toiled
for the middle class in less-than-ideal conditions. To ease this pressure
from below, the Liberal middle class made it its task to represent
working-class causes and, over time, this crystallised into Socialism.
Many aspects of Socialism were
anticipated by Liberalism which, like Socialism after it, pursued a number
of questionable policies in the name of “the public good,”
“world peace,” “universal brotherhood,” etc., while
in reality promoting the agenda of left-wing, subversive money interests.
Both Liberalism and Socialism were in fact
controlled by the leading elements among the middle class – the big
business, industrial and banking interests – who sought to acquire
more power for themselves at the expense of traditional power-holders like
the Crown, the land-owning aristocracy and the Church.
A characteristic feature of
both Liberalism and Socialism is the promotion of vested interests under
the guise of “progressive” economic, political and social
policies “for the common good.” In reality,
“progress” means progression to corporate Socialism where
political power is held by a handful of international industrialists,
bankers and financiers.
Q: What is the way
out of this predicament?
A: The way forward is to identify
the situation, the task imposed by the situation and the actions required
to carry out the task and achieve the desired results.
If the situation is caused by a gradual
conversion of society to Socialism and domination by financial interests,
then the logical solution is to first halt and then reverse this process.
The first steps that must be taken in this
Identify Liberal/Socialist policies
Identify the ideology behind these policies
Identify those responsible for spreading this ideology and for
implementing these policies
Identifying the Socialism in the main
parties’ policies is an important step forward. However, the next
step must be to identify those responsible for the spread of Socialism,
such as the Labour Party, the Fabian Society and
their financial backers and taking measures to monitor, control and disrupt
The Liberal-Socialist Left has quietly
built a power structure based on international financial interests and
supported by the political class, the civil service, the academic world,
the education system, the legal profession, intelligence services and
Society cannot be rebuilt unless the ground
is cleared for reconstruction. And this requires the dismantling by society
of the power structure that oppresses it.
Q: What role can
Conservatism play in the reconstruction of society?
A: Conservatism is the only answer
to Liberalism or Leftism. The history of Western
Society over the past few centuries can be described as a shift from right
to left, where “right” stands for tradition and conservatism
and “left” for self-serving change and destruction. In
particular, it has been a shift from Monarchy to Socialism and from
democracy to dictatorship.
As a movement aiming to preserve
traditional values, true Conservatism can play a crucial role in the reconstruction
of society and the return to common sense.
The Conservative Party can make a valuable
contribution to this reconstruction process providing that it returns to
its conservative roots.
Q: What are the
prospects of opposition to the present system?
A: Frankly, there currently
isn’t any credible opposition. The existing opposition groups
strangely lack leadership, proper programmes, or sense of direction. It was
precisely to address this situation that Free Britain Now was formed.
The British National Party (BNP), for
example, must be one of the most ineffectual political parties in British
history and its leader Nick Griffin one of the most unconvincing leaders.
His performance during the Immigration Debate on
the BBC’s Question Time programme in October 2009 was a complete
let-down of the British people. Griffin’s excuse that he was
subjected to a “lynch-mob” was as lame as his performance.
True, the audience and the panel were obviously hostile but, first, this
was to be expected and, second, leadership is about not caving in when you
come under attack.
Unsurprisingly, the BNP seems
to have a fundamental image problem. A YouGov
poll carried out for Sky News in 2006 showed that support for anti-immigration policies dropped
significantly when people were told that those policies were
promoted by the BNP (Daily Mail,
25 Apr. 2006). There is little evidence that the party has been able to
shake off its negative image since.
Copying the Third Way, the BNP attacks UKIP for
being “right-wing Tories” and Margaret
Thatcher for her “callous views on welfare and public
spending” (Bell, 2013) – as if Thatcher’s
battles with Marxist unions hell-bent on converting the country to
Communism had never taken place and money for public spending grew on trees
(much of it is in fact borrowed, leading to governments being indebted to
subversive financial interests).
At any rate, the BNP leadership
must be doing something wrong to consistently draw such dismal electoral
results (1.9 per cent of the vote in the 2010 general elections) even when
campaigning on otherwise popular policies like immigration control.
A similar case is that of the
English Defence League (EDL). Though more a street protest movement than a
political organisation, the EDL clearly aims to have an impact on
government policy and claims to lead the “counter-Jihad
movement” or struggle against Islamisation.
Unfortunately, it has some bizarre ways of going about it.
public support for the armed forces is commendable, its support for
multiculturalism and homosexuality (as well as for America and Israel) and
its publicity stunts like burning Germany’s wartime Nazi flag –
but not the flag of Socialism or the flag of Islamism and jihad – are
inconsistent and confusing. In light of this, the admission of Tommy
Robinson, its leader, that EDL tactics “are completely questionable” (Dixon, 2013) is
not far of the mark.
This also applies to EDL’s unwillingness to address the causes of Islamisation
such as mass immigration and multiculturalism even though Tommy Robinson
has urged his followers to vote for UKIP (Morse, 2013), a
party apparently opposed to immigration and multiculturalism.
Such inconsistencies and
contradictions may explain the fact that, like the BNP, the EDL has failed
to gain significant support among the general public even in the wake of Drummer
Lee Rigby’s murder by crazed Muslim fanatics. Nobody showed up for a
planned EDL wreath-laying vigil in Exeter, while in York the half a dozen
EDL protesters who did turn up, ended up having tea and biscuits with
members of the local mosque.
But there seem to be deeper
issues. Mr Robinson believes that everybody is “tiptoeing around” the problem of
Islam (Gover, 2013). Statements of this kind
betray a typical lack of understanding of the real situation. The
Establishment is certainly not tiptoeing around Islam, it is actively promoting it. And that is
because its policies are dictated by international oil interests, a fact
the EDL leadership seems oblivious to.
It would be interesting to know
why the EDL leadership is tiptoeing around immigration when those
responsible for the 7/7 bombings, the Rochdale gang rapes and the Woolwich
murder were not only Muslims but also immigrants,
and whether population replacement or genocide is not a more urgent issue
EDL leaders Tommy Robinson and Kevin Carroll have in the meantime (as of
October 2013) quit the movement allegedly because they could not control
the “far-right extremists” in the group. This new development
only serves to expose the glaring contradictions between the
movement’s centre-right rank and file and a confused leadership
controlled by left-wing interests masquerading as
All this leaves us with the UK
Independence Party (UKIP) as the only opposition group that can credibly
claim to have substantial support among voters. However, not all about UKIP
is what it seems.
In contrast to the EDL, UKIP
has identified mass immigration as an issue that is at the top of most
people’s agenda. But UKIP’s special
concern seems to be immigration from the European Union when the bulk of
immigrants are in fact from outside
the EU. Moreover, while UKIP’s 2010
manifesto promised “a
5-year freeze on all settled immigration” (UKIP London News, issue 8, 2010), the party has now reviewed
its policy to allow 50,000 (or more) in. That is no different from the Conservative offer.
For years, UKIP leader Nigel Farage has criticised the Establishment represented by
the three main parties (Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems)
for its shambolic policies. Strangely, he is now
saying that if we really want to clean up politics, our focus should be on
Brussels across the Channel (Farage 2013).
The fact is that it was not
Brussels who forced Labour to impose mass immigration and multiculturalism
on this country. It was not Brussels who instructed our intelligence
services to fabricate “evidence” of weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq and to silence dissent. Nor was it Brussels who ordered the Tories
to introduce gay marriage or wind turbines.
Moreover, Mr Farage appears to be (conveniently) unaware of the pivotal
role played by this country’s establishment in the creation of the EU. If we want to really clean up politics maybe we
should muck out the mess from the Westminster stables first.
is right about the major parties being “in hock to the
lobbies.” He is also right about the major parties being “social democratic”
(BBC News, 7 Oct. 2006). All he needs to do is to
see the connection between the two facts. If the policies of the
main parties are (a) Social Democratic or Socialist and (b) dictated by
financial interests, then it is safe to assume that the financial interests
themselves are pro-Socialist.
In the case of Labour, the
union lobbies who are major financial supporters of the party are of course
Marxist and so is the Fabian Society, a
semi-secret organisation with links to financial interests like the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers,
that has dominated Labour from inception (see The Fabian Society and Exposing
the Labour Party). Another major source of
influence on Labour is the Blairite think-tank
Progress whose co-founder Liam Byrne has been a banker with N M Rothschild &
Sons as well as a member of the Fabian Society.
The corporate lobbies behind
the Conservatives and Lib Dems cannot be any less
Socialist, as otherwise they would not be pushing for Socialist policies.
Indeed, the Conservatives’ long-standing chief policy adviser Oliver Letwin has been not only a Rothschild director but also
a member of the Fabian Society.
If implemented, Farage’s suggestion to the effect that all
lobbying and donations to politicians be registered “as they are in
the US,” can do no harm. As in the US, it will make no difference.
US parties employ
“independent” fundraising groups that collect donations outside
official party channels (Horowitz & Poe, pp. 61-2). They also have political
action committees (PACs) that provide funds to
political allies. This enables financial interests to manipulate the
system. Everybody knows that both the Republican and the Democrat Party are
dominated by left-wing financial interests like the Rockefellers, Goldman
Sachs and George Soros. Nobody does anything
about it. The real
solution would be to outlaw donations from subversive interests.
In other words, what is needed is a clear understanding of what true opposition is about.
If Social Democracy or Socialism is the problem, then this is what the
opposition should oppose. Opposing the Left and turning right must be our
political and moral compass. Keeping to the right and straight path must
inspire our vision, our thoughts and our actions.
With the opposition confused,
divided and pulling in different directions, it is easy to see why no
progress has been made and why no progress is likely to be made unless and
until a more radical and revolutionary approach is taken.
Q: Is a revolution of the Right possible?
A: If we are to
believe leading political and financial figures, Europe is approaching a
revolutionary situation. UKIP leader Nigel Farage
has spoken not only of a “new democratic revolution” sweeping northern
Europe (UKIPMEPS.ORG, 2011) but also of mass civil unrest and revolution on the Continent
(BBC News, 10 May 2012).
analysis has been endorsed by Germany’s Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaueble who has warned of a “revolution” if Europe adopts
American welfare models (Brady, 2013) and, ominously, by France’s
grey eminence Jacques Attali who has similarly
spoken of “revolution” in his own country
(Evans-Pritchard, 2013). Even EDL leader Tommy Robinson has joined the
chorus with calls for an “English Spring” (Guardian, 28 May 2013).
Presumably, the revolution
envisaged by Jacques Attali – a Marxist
prophet of world government and long-standing Rothschild associate whose
brother Bernard is a former chairman of Bankers Trust – is not quite
the same as that alluded to by the Christian Democrat Wolfgang Schaeuble or by Nigel Farage.
But when political heavyweights like Attali and Schaeuble talk of revolution, the possibility of such
an event cannot be lightly dismissed.
According to the Daily Telegraph, in Britain the revolution is represented by Mr Farage and his UKIP (Stanley, 2013). The question
is whether UKIP is a revolution or a counter-revolution.
For a better assessment of the
situation, we must start with the larger picture. The European Union was
ostensibly created to bring stability, prosperity and well-being to all its
members. Instead, we now have several countries – Greece, Spain,
Italy and France – that are close to bankruptcy. This is supposed to
be all Germany’s fault who allegedly “dominates Europe.”
A more rational and objective
approach reveals a different picture. Post-war Europe was rebuilt with
American Marshall Aid money by the same people who later created the
European Union. Indeed, European union was stipulated as a precondition for
Marshall Aid and the European Union – originally referred to as the
United States of Europe – was clearly modelled on the United States
of America. From the start, the project involved international
(Anglo-American) financial interests and their collaborators among
Europe’s political elites.
Those who believe that Germany
dominates Europe should look at who controls Germany’s finances:
The German Bundesbank (Federal Bank) was
set up by the Allies after the war, was modelled on the US Federal Reserve
and has been mostly controlled by Europeanist Socialists ever since.
The supposedly “German” Deutsche Bank has been run by
the likes of Sir John Craven, former S. G. Warburg & Co. executive; Bernard Attali,
former Bankers Trust chairman; and
Alan Greenspan, former US Federal Reserve chairman and CFR director.
Chancellor Angela Merkel is being advised by Goldman Sachs directors
Alexander Dibelius and Otmar
The World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were
established at the 1944 Breton Woods conference in which John Maynard
Keynes, secretary-general of the Fabian Socialist
Royal Economics Society (RES) and his friend, US Under-Secretary of the
Treasury Harry Dexter White, a covert Communist, played key roles.
Most World Bank presidents have been directors of the
Rockefeller-dominated Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Likewise, the IMF has been dominated by members of the
Rockefellers’ CFR and Trilateral Commission.
The European Central Bank (ECB) was created by the Maastricht Treaty
which aimed to achieve European monetary union and was imposed on Germany
by France whose special presidential adviser was Rothschild associate and
Marxist activist Jacque Attali. The ECB’s first president was Wim
Duisenberg of the Socialist Dutch Labour Party and former IMF official. Its
current president is Mario Draghi, former World
Bank executive director and former managing director of Goldman Sachs
It was ECB boss and Goldman operative Mario Draghi
who devised a plan to do “whatever it takes” to save the euro
based on European banking union (OMT, “Outright Monetary
Transactions”). Far from the Germans being behind the plan, Bundesbank president Jens Weidman actually opposed it (Economist, 8 Jun. 2013, pp. 13, 36)
– and so did half of the German public.
Mr Farage says
that there are over 3,000 European Commission committees and advisory
groups whose make-up is a “closely guarded secret” (Farage, 2013).
What is no secret is that a leading role
among these groups has been played by the European Enterprise Group (EEG)
– founded by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) – and
the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT), both outfits set up by
Rothschild and Rockefeller interests. ERT’s
vice-chairman from 2006 to 2009 was Trilateral Commission European chairman
Peter Sutherland, chairman (and partner) of London-based Goldman Sachs
We have seen no evidence that Germany is
responsible for mass immigration, multiculturalism or Islamisation
in Britain. The evidence indicates that these policies are backed by
British and international financial interests. We know that Goldman Sachs
International chairman Peter Sutherland who is also honorary Trilateral
Commission chairman for Europe as well as head of the United Nations Forum
for Migration and Development, has been an advocate of immigration (Sutherland, 2012); has called on the EU to
undermine the ethnic and cultural identity of member states (Select Committee on the European Union, p. 25);
and chaired the 2008 Trilateral Commission meeting which backed the union
of Europe with the Arab world (Mediterranean Union) as a “model for the world” (Trilateral Commission, Meeting Summary).
The evidence also shows that industry and
financial lobbies like the CBI
are backing immigration. They are the same interests who
created the EU and who have dominated Europe and Britain ever since, in
collaboration with the Left-dominated political classes.
The fact is that Europe, including Germany,
has been taken over by international financial elites with close links to
Rothschild, Rockefeller and Goldman Sachs interests (see also The
Truth about the European Union). These are the elements that must be opposed and combated
everywhere in Europe and, above all, in Britain itself, given that Britain
and especially London, is one of their chief strongholds.
The Establishment’s propaganda
machine may be able to deflect attention from the real culprits. It may be
able to turn public opinion against Germany
as it has done in the past and as it is now doing in Greece and elsewhere,
where its agents and collaborators are busy fuelling anti-German hysteria.
But it will not be able to do so indefinitely.
The Foreign Office has ordered British
embassies to prepare contingency plans in anticipation
of riots and civil unrest on the Continent. But, sooner or later, Europeans
will see through the wall of propaganda and disinformation and realise that
the true culprits are international bankers and financiers with links to
London, Washington and New York. Europe might then turn against Britain
– just like Ireland, India and the Islamic world have done –
and Britons will find themselves at the receiving end.
To avoid this scenario, the British people
must now turn against the Establishment. This is what true revolution is
about. Revolutions that blame others are no revolutions but
counter-revolutionary ploys. It is no good fighting one enemy “on the
beaches and in the hills” when a worse enemy is sitting in
Westminster and in the City. We have fallen for the designs of the
counter-revolution in the past. We cannot afford to make that mistake
Having identified left-wing financial
interests and their political collaborators as the culprits, they must now
be exposed and combated. Their power must be broken and democracy must be
put back into the system. But it would be wrong to rely on political
parties like UKIP to do it on our behalf. We have done this with the
established parties. It is another mistake we cannot afford to repeat.
If we are to have a
revolution, the following points may be considered as a general guideline
1. The aberrations
of the Left can only be redressed by a revolution of the Right.
2. We cannot expect
others to be revolutionary on our behalf. We ourselves must become revolutionary.
3. The only way to
become revolutionary is by moving as close to the Right and as far away
from the Left as possible.
4. To move to the
right, that is, to move forward in the right direction, it is necessary to
identify and eliminate everything that is left, i.e., wrong and harmful, in
ourselves, both individually and collectively, at the level of community,
political organisations and society at large.
5. The ultimate
object of all revolutionary effort must be the defence, restoration and
preservation of Britain, its people and its culture, and the defeat of all
6. To counteract
both Socialism and Islamism, Britain must re-assert itself as a Christian
Q: Are closer ties to America the way forward?
A: Britain’s wartime
experience seems to have left some with false memories of America as a sort
of benign giant bearing large gifts. The reality is that America’s
“gifts” come with strings attached and a very large price tag.
Take the Marshall Plan, for example. It was
launched in the late 1940s to help in the reconstruction of Europe after
the war. Unfortunately, the precondition for receiving Marshall Aid cash
was European unification – the EU we all want to get out of.
In 1950, Robert Boothby, former parliamentary
private secretary to Churchill and leading member of the United Europe
Movement (UEM) reminded the Commons of the Marshall Plan preamble
stipulating the unification of Europe (Boothby, 1950).
The previous year, Labour Foreign Secretary
Ernest Bevin had said that America expected Europe to get together
politically and economically “as a price for US aid”
and that the British Government would be attacked in
Washington if it were to be seen as opposing European
unification (Bevin, 1949).
Although the Establishment’s
propaganda machine is now attempting to cover up the facts, it was common
knowledge at the time. Moreover, as conceded by US Government sources, the
Marshall Plan provided markets for American goods
and created “reliable trading partners” for American business
interests. Above all, it bankrolled Socialism in Britain and on the
The same applies to all other dealings we
have had with America ever since. There is always another side of the coin
and that is because closer ties with America have always been the policy of
international financial interests whose primary concern is to promote their
Those who advocate closer economic ties
with America ought to be aware that closer economic ties lead to closer
political and cultural ties which in turn result in rising American
domination and Americanisation of British economy, politics and culture.
The fact is that while America has long got
its independence from Britain, the trend for Britain (and Europe) for the
last hundred years has been to become a colony – as some have put it,
“the poodle” – of America or, more precisely, of American
financial interests. It is a
trend that must not be encouraged if we are to preserve our independence,
identity and freedom.
Indeed, the drive to push Britain deeper
into the arms of America – as currently promoted by organisations
like Global Britain (the think-tank behind UKIP) – must be resisted
at all costs.
Closer links to those who want to see
changes to America’s present system are of course a different matter.
Unfortunately, this is not what mainstream Anglo-Americanists
Q: Can America be a model for Britain or Europe?
A: This question can
only be answered by debunking all the myths about America and taking an
objective and critical look at the country as it really is.
It is widely believed that the
creation of the United States of America was inspired by a popular desire
for independence from Britain. Indeed, every nation has the right to be
independent and free. But why did America choose to become a republic and not a kingdom when most
countries at the time were monarchies?
The fact is that
America’s drive for independence was influenced by republican
tendencies rooted in Europe’s trading city-states. These states were
controlled by commercial elites who were opposed to monarchies supported by
the landed aristocracy. They represented a shift from traditional
agriculture-based society to one dominated by trade and commerce.
As a system inspired and
promoted by business interests for their own agenda, republicanism cannot
be a model for a society aspiring to be democratic and free.
Moreover, republicanism goes
against the concept of monarchy which is central to Christian tradition.
The title of Christ the King and the concept of kingdom are firmly rooted
in Christian tradition and fully supported by Scripture. The New Testament
refers to Christ as “King eternal” and “King of
kings” (1 Timothy 1:17; 6:15). It was to
counteract the advances of secularism that the Vatican established the Feast of Christ the King.
Christ the King, stained glass,
Annunciation Melkite Catholic Cathedral,
The fact is that neither
president nor republic has any basis in Christian teachings and
republicanism has always been rejected by the Church as un-Christian (Moss, 2009).
Republicanism’s un-Christian connotations bring us to another
important fact about America, namely the pivotal role played by Freemasons
in its creation.
33 of the generals who served
under George Washington were Freemasons and so was Washington’s
friend and military ally, the French General Lafayette; a significant number of Freemasons were among those who signed America’s
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; there were leading Freemasons among America’s
presidents beginning with Washington, the first president, himself; there was widespread use of
Masonic symbolism in official state architecture and even in currency design,
etc. (Clausen, 1976).
Historians have failed to provide a
satisfactory explanation for the heavy involvement of Freemasons in the
founding and running of the American Republic. But what must be beyond
dispute is that Freemasonry is a left-wing subversive movement that is
opposed not only to monarchy but also to Christianity, for which reason it
has been strongly condemned by the Church
(Gruber, 1910, pp. 774, 786-7).
Freemasonry’s links to international
financial interests explain the development of America into a society
dominated by money. Indeed, if we look beyond official propaganda, American
“independence” really amounts to a transfer of power from the
Crown to private financial interests – a process that was replicated
in all other British colonies. What we can see from American history is a
gradual economisation and financialisation of
society where everything revolves around financial profit and those who
make the largest profits become de
facto rulers of society.
Already in the 1800s, August Belmont Sr.,
an employee of the Rothschilds’ Frankfurt
banking firm and a representative of their interests in the US, became
chairman of America’s Democratic Party (Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 14, p.
342; Ferguson, 2000, vol. 2. pp. 65-7) and the Democrats have been
dominated by representatives and associates of Rothschild interests from J
P Morgan to Goldman Sachs and George Soros ever
Likewise, the Republican Party has been
dominated by financial interests like the Rockefellers who are covert Fabian Socialists as well as allies and partners of the
Rothschilds. This explains why America has two main
parties whose Socialistic policies are barely distinguishable from each
This, of course, is not a criticism of
American people but of the American system which is dominated by unelected
financial interests who have enslaved a nation that wanted to be free.
Americans began their struggle for
independence because they objected to paying taxes to King George III.
Today, they are paying sky-high (and rising) taxes to a government that is
even more hostile to their interests than George III was. Indeed, the
Socialistic US Government is in the process of replacing America’s
European population with Africans and Latin Americans.
We know from a number of official
publications that this is a deliberate plan. Already in the 1950s, an
article in the Masonic magazine New
plan is dedicated to the unification of all races, religions and creeds.
This plan, dedicated to the new order of things, is to make all things new
– a new nation, a new race, a new civilization and a new religion
…” (Smith, 1950).
This is in complete agreement
with the interreligious and interracial brand of
“religion” promoted by Rockefeller outfits like Riverside
Church – whose Manhattan headquarters sports figures of religious
leaders from Buddha to prophet Mohammed (Collier, p. 154).
That the international money power sees
America’s future as belonging to African-Americans and Latinos
– and not to white people
– is evident from statements to that effect by Angela
Glover Blackwell, founder of the research agency Policy Link and former
senior vice-president of the Rockefeller Foundation.
Meanwhile, faithfully following the
American example, Britain’s own Rockefeller-associated institutions
like Cardiff University and their media collaborators are promoting the
idea that mixed-race people are “more attractive,” ”more successful” and that “the future of British society is mixed-race,”
that is, non-white.
Christians welcome immigrants as an expression of Christian tolerance,
compassion and love?
A: Christianity teaches tolerance,
compassion and love as general principles but these cannot be binding in
all our actions. Christ himself was not always tolerant and compassionate
to all and sundry. He was certainly not tolerant towards the forces of
evil. He chased money-changers from the temple, drove out demons and called
on his disciples to slay his enemies (John 2:13-16; Mark 1:29-39; Luke 19:
27). In all such instances, the principle that overrides all others is
In Biblical tradition, God who is the
Supreme Sovereign (King over all the earth) also fulfils the function of
supreme lawgiver and judge. Christ’s role as supreme dispenser of
justice is central to Christian tradition and so is the duty of Christians
to uphold justice. As pointed out by St Augustine and other Church Fathers,
injustice lays upon us the duty to fight in the cause of justice (St
Augustine, p. 862).
The overriding principle in judging the
merits or demerits of human action in Christian society is not tolerance or
compassion but justice. Otherwise,
right and wrong, good and evil, would become meaningless; thieves, child molesters,
rapists, murderers and traitors would all walk free; and the whole of society would sink into chaos and
Regarding immigrants, Christ did say that
the highest commandment is to love God, followed by love for one’s
neighbour. However, “neighbour” in this instance would have
referred to people of one’s own community, not to strangers and even
less to immigrants from other parts of the world. Similarly, the rules of
conduct suggested in the Sermon on the Mount are to be understood as
referring to personal relationships among members of a small community of
disciples all of whom (ideally) adhered to the same rules.
Moreover, Scripture states that on Judgement
Day all the nations will be gathered before Christ who will divide them
into righteous and unrighteous ones and sit in judgement over them (Matthew
25:31). This shows that there can be no such thing as a “divine
plan” to unify all nations and races into one through immigration or
by other means.
While there is a Christian tradition of
hospitality towards strangers, this cannot be extended to millions of
immigrants. In fact, mass immigration is unfair on the host population and
goes against the Christian principle of justice. This is particularly true
if and when:
immigration is imposed on British society by vested interests
immigration serves the agenda of vested interests
the objective or outcome of immigration is the replacement (or
extermination) of the indigenous population
the ultimate goal of those behind immigration
is to wipe out Britain’s national culture and religion, that is,
In sum, to the extent that mass immigration
is unjust, un-Christian, unfair and serves the agenda
of those who seek to destroy Christianity, it must be opposed by all
Q: How is
Britain’s indigenous population being replaced?
A: While the indigenous population
is falling (because its birth rate is too low to make up for the loss
incurred through mortality and emigration), the immigrant population is
growing (thanks to mass immigration and a high birth rate). This leads to a
gradual replacement of the indigenous population with immigrants.
On figures provided in 2009 by the UK
Office for National Statistics (ONS) the immigrant population is estimated
to have already reached approximately 20 per cent of the total population
– 14 per cent non-white (South Asian, black, mixed-race and Chinese)
and 6 per cent white.
The total immigrant population is projected to reach 27 per cent by 2031 and 43 per
cent by 2056. At the same time, calculations by Oxford
demographics professor David Coleman show that the white British-born
population will decline from currently 80 per cent to 59 per cent by 2051
and will become a minority after 2066 (Coleman, 2010; Silverman, 2013).
The above figures suggest that complete or
near-complete replacement by the end of the century is a very strong
As admitted by Lee Jasper of the
National Assembly Against Racism, we could have a majority black Britain by the turn of the century
(Browne, 2000). Similar
scenarios have been projected for the rest of Europe and for North America.
Q: Have monarchies
been better than republics at protecting nations against developments like immigration,
multiculturalism and Islamisation?
A: Monarchy is often
simply defined as rule by one person, especially one belonging to an
established dynasty. However, such a definition is incomplete and
misleading as it leaves out the function of monarchy. The very purpose of a
monarch is to preserve and protect the well-being of the nation over which
he rules, along with its culture, religion and traditions. If the monarch
fails do so, we are no longer dealing with a monarchy in the strict sense
of the word.
In those cases where monarchies
have failed to fulfil their duty – for example, to protect a nation
against mass immigration, multiculturalism and Islamisation
– we are not dealing with true monarchies, but with systems that are
monarchies in name only. Such systems may retain a monarch as head of
state, while in reality operating like republics with prime ministers
behaving very much like presidents in republican systems.
This leads to
self-contradictory and absurd situations – as in Britain and the
Scandinavian countries – where a nation is headed by a monarch (king
or queen) but governed by prime ministers who are Socialists and whose
political parties are opposed to the monarchy and doing their best to
undermine it and work for its destruction.
The fact is that every system
can be infiltrated, undermined and taken over by subversive interests in
the same way a healthy body can be taken over by a parasite. The fault does
not lie with the body but with the parasitic entity which has taken it over.
Just as a return to health in a
body taken over by a parasite requires the suppression of the parasite, a
return to a healthy society requires the suppression of republican elements
representing vested interests and a return to proper monarchy.
While monarchy stands for the
preservation of the nation, its culture, its religion and its traditions,
republicanism stands for unwarranted changes serving the agenda of vested
interests such as international industrialists, bankers and financiers.
The monarch cannot be
indifferent or neutral towards political forces seeking to undermine the
monarchy and take over society. Nor can society be indifferent to forces
seeking to take it over and undermine the monarchy. Therefore, monarchy and
society must stand united against those who seek to destroy them. While the
monarchy must do its duty of protecting and preserving society, society
must ensure that the monarchy is able to do its job.
In sum, the monarchy must be
endowed by society with the necessary powers to oppose republicanism along
with the social, political and economic changes imposed by it.
Q: What is the
true role of the media?
A: Nick Davis in his Flat Earth News, a work claiming to
expose the truth about the media, says that the old press barons who used
to personally own and abuse newspapers have long sold out to corporations
whose primary purpose is not propaganda but making money (Davis, p. 16).
This is contradicted by the facts on the
ground. The purpose of the news media, for example, should be to provide a
reliable source of information on current affairs. In reality, their
primary function is to deflect public attention from what is really
happening and to cover up the wider picture.
For example, a Daily Mail article exposing Tony Blair’s links to various
world leaders and multinational corporations gives him the “unethical
rating” of 2 out of 5 for his
role as senior adviser to the US banking giant J. P. Morgan and 4 out of 5
for advising China Investment Corporation (Scott, 2013).
What the article doesn’t say is that
J. P. Morgan is part of the Rockefellers’ JPMorgan
Chase and that the Rockefellers have a long history of financing the Fabian Society – of which Mr Blair is a
long-standing member – which exposes the Rockefellers as one of the
driving forces behind Fabian Socialism and its
J. P. Morgan’s International Advisory
Council of which Blair is chairman also includes Gao
Xi-Qing, vice-chairman, president and chief
investment officer of China Investment Corporation (CIC). If Blair’s
advising CIC (which is owned by the Chinese Communist State) earns him 4
out of 5 unethical points, then the Rockefellers deserve a similar rating
for employing CIC (and Blair) as advisers.
The same applies to former UN Secretary-General
Kofi Annan, who is a
member of the J. P. Morgan Council – along with Blair and Gao Xi-Qing. Moreover, Kofi Annan is chairman of the
Africa Progress Panel (of which Mr Blair and CFR director Robert Rubin are
members), as well as a member of the United Nations Foundation, Club of
Madrid, International Crisis Group (of which George Soros
is a member) and the World Economic Forum (of which JPMorgan
Chase, the Rockefeller Foundation, Goldman Sachs and others are strategic
partners). In other words, Tony Blair, Kofi Annan, the Rockefellers and associates all belong to
the same international web of agents of globalisation and world government.
missed another chance to tell its readers the whole truth in a piece on the
Bilderberg Group. Entitled “Does a shadowy
clique of VIPs, politicians and billionaires (meeting today in Watford) run
the world?,” the article plays down the notion that Bilderberg might have anything to do with world rule by
claiming that it is a belief held by the likes of Osama
bin Laden and Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh (Birrell,
The fact that world government advocate and
frequent Bilderberg guest Tony Blair finds it a
“really useful group”; that Bilderberg
co-founder Denis Healey himself admitted that it aimed to achieve a
“united global governance”; that well-known world government
architects like David Rockefeller have been involved in founding, financing
and running the group; that its members include leading VIPs, politicians
and billionaires who between them control much of the world’s
finance, economy and politics; and that they are founders and members of
other like-minded organisations, ought to persuade even the most sceptical
reporters that Bilderbergers might, after all,
have something to do with running the world.
Likewise, the few articles that make any
attempt at being “critical” of international banking interests
like Goldman Sachs (“Alex Brummer: Goldman
Sachs’ touch of darkness,” 14 Mar. 2012, “William Cohan: How Goldman Sachs sucked the world dry,” 16
Mar. 2012) make no mention whatsoever of the key roles played by these
interests, their partners and employees, in Europe’s (and the
world’s) finance and politics.
The media also consistently fail to
investigate international money-power projects like the Mediterranean Union
(a.k.a. Union for the Mediterranean) which aims to enforce economic,
political and cultural union between Europe and the Islamic Middle East
North Africa (MENA) region as a prelude to uniting Europe with the whole of
Even when they appear to be opposed to
unpopular policies like mass immigration, the media seek to defuse the
issue by focusing on economic and cultural rather than ethnic and racial
considerations, in effect covering up a demographic impact of immigration
on the indigenous population that amounts to population replacement or
ethnic cleansing (see above).
For example, the Mail’s front-page article on the “true toll of mass migration on UK life”
(Slack, 2013), merely relays the findings of a government report detailing the
strain placed by mass immigration on schools, police, NHS and housing.
There is no mention of the demographic
impact of immigration despite the fact that an earlier article (by the
same author) had identified the demographic upheaval caused by mass
immigration as the “longest-lasting impact”
on British society (Slack, 2010).
Moreover, the media’s criticism of
immigration is cancelled out by the same media’s heavy and systematic
promotion of immigrants and foreigners from pop stars and football players
to Page-3 models. The overall result is that even supposedly
“right-wing” media outlets are ultimately advancing left-wing
A brief glance at the elements behind the
media reveals a striking interconnection with financial interests cutting
across the political spectrum from left to right: the Guardian has
been run by Rothschild associates like Anthony Salz
and Paul Myners; The Times and The Sun are owned by Rupert Murdoch
who is a friend and business partner of Lord Jacob
Rothschild; the Daily Express is owned by Richard
Desmond who is the president of Norwood, a charity funded and run by
Rothschild interests, etc.
un-journalistic and anti-national behaviour is explained by the fact that they are owned or controlled by elements
of the same international money power that is responsible for much of what
is happening in the world and whose activities the media industry ought to
investigate and report – but utterly fails to do so. This is why the
media cannot be described as anything else than the money power’s
instruments of propaganda, manipulation and mass control (see also The
truth about the European Union).
Q: You are saying
that the Fabian Society is the most influential
organisation within the Labour Party. Aren’t the trade unions also influential?
A: Political leaders on the right
– from Conservative chairman Francis Maude to UKIP’s
Nigel Farage have denounced Labour as being “in hock to the unions”
(Maude, 2007; Farage, 4 Jun. 2013). Indeed,
figures released by the register of donations show that trade unions
account for three quarters of Labour’s donations
(Swinford, 2013). But the fact is that the unions
have always been an important source of financial support to Labour without
necessarily being able to translate this into an equivalent degree of
Society and the unions have always shared power and influence over the Left
in general and over Labour, in particular. Wherever the unions are, the
Fabians are not far behind and in many cases they are well ahead. This is
reflected, for example, in the fact that Labour leader Ed Miliband is said to be “taking his script from
the trade unions”, while (in his own words) also being “an avid
reader of Fabian pamphlets”. Moreover, Miliband’s prospective successor Ed Balls is a
prominent member (and former vice-chairman and chairman) of the Fabian Society, etc.
While the unions have the cash and the
numbers, the Fabians have the brains and control think-tanks and other
influential pressure groups whose Fabian
connections are unknown to voters. After all, it was not by accident that
Fabians like Peter Mandelson were the architects
of “New Labour”, or that the 1997-2001 Labour Cabinet consisted
mostly of Fabians (from Tony Blair downwards), with over 200 Fabians sitting in the House of Commons.
This has been the case since the first
Labour governments in the early 1900s and is likely to remain so for the
foreseeable future. As in the hare and tortoise fable, hard though the
unions may try, the Fabians are already there. For unions like Unite to
control any political party on the left they would have to form their own
party – which will be promptly colonised and taken over by Fabians (a
number of whom have dual membership of both the FS and of unions like
However, from the general
public’s point of view, it makes no difference whether Labour is
dominated by the Fabian Society and the
think-tank Progress representing one strand of Socialism (Social
Democracy), or by Unite representing another (Marxism).
The media and
politicians’ focus on the alleged “take-over” by the
unions while completely ignoring the far more resourceful, influential and
dangerous Fabian Society is not only absurd, but
can only serve to deflect attention from the FS and play into the hand of
the Fabian camp who is already the dominant
faction on the left. What is needed is a total rejection of Socialism in all its forms in the same way we
reject other totalitarian systems like Nazism (National Socialism) and
BBC News, “UKIP ‘voice of British
BBC News, “Nigel Farage
warns of EU ‘mass unrest’ and ‘revolution’”,
10 May, 2012.
Bell, Ian, “Beware UKIP Thatcherites,” 24 Mar. 2013, www.bnp.org.uk/, reprinted from Third Way.
Bevin, Ernest, “Council of Europe,” Memorandum by
Bevin, 24 Oct. 1949, CAB/129/37/4.
Ian, “Does a shadowy clique of VIPs, politicians and billionaires
(meeting today in Watford) run the world?,” Daily Mail, 6 Jun. 2013.
Boothby, Robert, in “Schuman Plan,” House of Commons Debate, 27 June
1950, vol. 476 c2120.
“Germany’s finance minister warns of a ‘revolution’
if Europe adopts America’s tougher welfare model,” Daily Mail, 28 May 2013.
Browne, Anthony, “The
last days of a white world,” Observer,
3 Sept. 2000.
Clausen, Henry C., Masons Who Helped Shape Our Nation, Washington,
Coleman, David, “When
Britain becomes “majority minority””, Prospect, 17 Nov. 2010.
Peter & Horowitz, David, The
Rockefellers: An American Dynasty, London, 1976.
Daily Mail, “Most Britons actually support
BNP policies,” 25 Apr. 2006.
Davis, Nick, Flat Earth News: An Award-winning Reporter
Exposes Falsehood, Distortion and Propaganda in the Global Media,
Dixon, Hayley, “BBC ‘poisons’ airwaves with
EDL interview,” Daily Telegraph,
11 Jun. 2013.
Economist, “Europe’s banking union:
A la carte and half-baked,” 8 Jun. 2013.
Economist, “The ECB deterrent: Bench
press,” 8 Jun. 2013.
“Europe’s ‘new deal’ for jobless dismissed as
rhetoric,” Daily Telegraph,
28 May 2013.
Nigel, “This cosy trialogue,” Guardian, 4 Jun. 2013.
Niall, The House of Rothschild, 2
vols., New York, NY, 2000.
Dominic, “Woolwich Beheading: Police Say Claim of Muslim Joy in
Oldham is False Rumour,” International
Business Times, UK ed., 23 May 2013.
Hermann, “Masonry,” The
Catholic Encyclopedia, New York, 1910, vol.
9, pp. 771-787.
Guardian, “Help for Heroes rejects EDL
donation cash,” 28 May, 2013.
Horowitz, David & Poe, Richard, The Shadow Party, Nashville, TN, 2006.
Francis, Labour is back in hock to the unions,” Daily Telegraph, 26 Jan. 2007.
Felicity, “EDL’s Tommy Robinson
Endorses Ukip: ‘They Are Saying Exactly
What We Say In A Different Way,” Huffington Post, 4 Mar. 2013.
Vladimir, “Must An Orthodox Christian Be A Monarchist?,” 4/17
Jul. 2009 www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com
National Statistics, Experimental Population Estimates by Ethnic Group for
local authority districts and higher administrative areas for England and
Wales for 2009.
St Augustine, City of
God, trans. H. Bettenson, London, 2003.
“Blair’s Dirty Money: As
his tentacles reach Mongolia, how the ex-PM’s making millions for
some of the world’s most evil regimes,” Daily Mail, 15 Jun. 2013.
Select Committee on the European Union, House of Lords,
“Inquiry on Global Approach to Migration and Mobility, 20 Jun.
2012,” uncorrected transcript, published 22 June 2012.
Silverman, Rosa, “White Britons ‘will be
minority’ by 2066, says professor,” Daily Telegraph, 2 May 2013.
Slack, James, “Will the white British population be in a
minority in 2066?,” Daily Mail, 3 Dec. 2010.
Slack, James, “True toll of mass migration on UK life:
Half of Britons suffer under strain placed on schools, police, NHS and
housing,” Daily Mail, 4
Smith, C. William, “God’s Plan In America,” New Age, September 1950, p. 551,
quoted in Epperson, Ralph, The New
World Order, Tucson, A, 1990, p. 146.
“Ukip is a very British revolution,” Daily Telegraph, 3 May 2013.
Peter, “A Constructive Attitude to Migration is a Moral Issue,”
Address to the International Eucharistic Congress, Dublin, 15 June 2012.
Steven, “Trade unions responsible for three quarters of
Labour’s donations,” Daily
Telegraph, 13 Aug. 2013.
Trilateral Commission (Europe), Meeting Summary, 32nd European Regional Meeting,
Paris, 7-9 November 2008.
New democratic revolution sweeps northern Europe,” 28 Sept. 2011.
’Revolt on the Right’: UKIP and the Fabian
Crimea, Ukraine and the Anglo-American New World Order
Nelson Mandela: “President of the World” or
Diversity is Not a Catholic Value
it’s Saturday, it’s the Germans again – or why the Mail has lost the plot
a British revolution
Do white people have a future in South Africa?
Conservatives: The Inklings in Their Political Context
there a “need” for immigrants?
The Labour Party, a puppet of
the Fabian Society
The truth about the Labour
truth about the Fabian Society
The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy against humanity
Socialism’s prescient critics
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism
Britain divided by Islam, survey finds
Abolish this corrupt chamber – the House of
Commons, that is
The Real Churchill
The last days of a white world
A Webb of Lies
Socialism and Incentives
Ratiu, Ioan, The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy: How an
international elite is taking over and destroying Europe, America and the
World, Richmond, 2012.
Quigley, Carroll, The Anglo-American Establishment: From
Rhodes to Cliveden, GSG & Associates, San
Pedro, CA, 1981.
Martin, Rose, Fabian
Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A., Chicago,
Eric D., The Fabian
Socialist Contribution to the Communist Advance, Melbourne, 1964.
Dorril, Stephen, MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations, London, 2001.
Horowitz, David &
Poe, Richard, The Shadow Party: How
George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties
Radicals seized control of the Democratic Party, Nashville, TN, 2006.
Ye’or, Bat, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Madison, NJ,
Bawer, Bruce, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying The West From
Within, New York, NY, 2006.
et al., The Black Book of Communism:
Crimes, Terror, Repression, Engl. translation, Cambridge, MA and
Williamson, Kevin, The Politically Incorrect Guide to
Socialism, Washington, DC,
Hitchens, Peter, The Abolition of Britain: From Winston Churchill to Princess Diana,
Knight, Nigel, Churchill: The Greatest Briton Unmasked,
Newton Abbot, Devon, 2008.
Docherty, Gerry &
Macgregor, James, Hidden History: The
Secret Origins of the First World War, Edinburgh, 2013.