Socialism exposed







The Fabian

Society: the

masters of




Revealed: the Socialist International


The truth about the European Union











The Oxford





the EDL




Frequently Asked Questions



Q: What is Free Britain Now?


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.


Nigel Farage, 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.




Q: Doesn’t 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 populations concerned.


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 British society.


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, etc.




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 servants.


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 direction are:


·        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 their activities.


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 police forces.


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.


While EDL’s 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 than Islamisation.


(Editor’s note: 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 “right-wing.”)  


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.


Mr Farage 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).


Mr Farage’s 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 Issing.


·     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 International.


·     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 International.


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 again.


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 for action.

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 enemies.

6. To counteract both Socialism and Islamism, Britain must re-assert itself as a Christian Monarchy.


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 Continent.


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 own agenda.


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 are proposing.



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.


      Wikipedia Commons


Christ the King, stained glass, Annunciation Melkite Catholic Cathedral,

Rosingdale, Massachusetts



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 since.


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 other.


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 Age declared:


“God’s 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.




Q: Shouldn’t 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 Justice.


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 anarchy. 


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, Christianity itself.


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 righteous Christians.




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 possibility.


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 internationalist schemes.


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.


The Mail 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, 2013).


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 Africa.


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 agendas.


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.


The media’s 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 influence.


The Fabian 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 Unite).


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 Fascism.





BBC News, “UKIP ‘voice of British majority’,” 7 Oct. 2006.


BBC News, “Nigel Farage warns of EU ‘mass unrest’ and ‘revolution’”, 10 May, 2012.


Bell, Ian, “Beware UKIP Thatcherites,” 24 Mar. 2013,, reprinted from Third Way.


Bevin, Ernest, “Council of Europe,” Memorandum by Bevin, 24 Oct. 1949, CAB/129/37/4.


Birrell, 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.


Brady, Tara, “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, DC, 1976.


Coleman, David, “When Britain becomes “majority minority””, Prospect, 17 Nov. 2010.


Collier, 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, London, 2008.


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.


Encyclopaedia Judaica, Jerusalem, 1971.


Evans-Pritchard, “Europe’s ‘new deal’ for jobless dismissed as rhetoric,” Daily Telegraph, 28 May 2013.


Farage, Nigel, “This cosy trialogue,” Guardian, 4 Jun. 2013.


Ferguson, Niall, The House of Rothschild, 2 vols., New York, NY, 2000.


Gover, Dominic, “Woolwich Beheading: Police Say Claim of Muslim Joy in Oldham is False Rumour,” International Business Times, UK ed., 23 May 2013.


Gruber, 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.


Maude, Francis, Labour is back in hock to the unions,” Daily Telegraph, 26 Jan. 2007.


Morse, Felicity, “EDL’s Tommy Robinson Endorses Ukip: ‘They Are Saying Exactly What We Say In A Different Way,” Huffington Post, 4 Mar. 2013.


Moss, Vladimir, “Must An Orthodox Christian Be A Monarchist?,” 4/17 Jul. 2009


Office for 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.


Scott, Paul, “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 Jul. 2013.


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.


Stanley, Tim, “Ukip is a very British revolution,” Daily Telegraph, 3 May 2013.


Sutherland, Peter, “A Constructive Attitude to Migration is a Moral Issue,” Address to the International Eucharistic Congress, Dublin, 15 June 2012.


Swinford, 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.


UKIPMEPS.ORG, “Farage: New democratic revolution sweeps northern Europe,” 28 Sept. 2011.






’Revolt on the Right’: UKIP and the Fabian Socialist

smoke-and-mirrors campaign


Crimea, Ukraine and the Anglo-American New World Order


Nelson Mandela: “President of the World” or “murderous terrorist”?


Diversity is Not a Catholic Value


If it’s Saturday, it’s the Germans again – or why the Mail has lost the plot


Towards a British revolution


Do white people have a future in South Africa?


Romantic Conservatives: The Inklings in Their Political Context


Is there a “need” for immigrants?


The Labour Party, a puppet of the Fabian Society


The truth about the Labour Party


The 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





Recommended reading



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, IL, 1966.


Butler, 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, 2006.


Bawer, Bruce, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying The West From Within, New York, NY, 2006.


Courtois, Stéphane et al., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, Engl. translation, Cambridge, MA and London, 1999.


Williamson, Kevin, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism, Washington, DC,



Hitchens, Peter, The Abolition of Britain: From Winston Churchill to Princess Diana, London, 2008.


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.

















Get Britain Out


Big Brother



Young Britons’





Bow Group















Immigration Control





Of Europe








Copyright © 2013