Ioan Ratiu. Immigration

The chapter 8 from Ioan Ratiu's book "The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy", 2012.

To the contents of the book. Download in Word format. Mobile version.

There is a conspiracy to exterminate the indigenous population of Europe and replace them with immigrants from Asia and Africa. This conspiracy is open, as its organizers make no secret of their intentions.

Immigration is one of the most hotly-debated topics in Britain and other Western countries. The Immigration Debate on the BBC One programme Question Time (22 Oct. 2009) - watched by 8 million viewers - showed that the British people are very concerned about immigration.

A survey by the YouGov polling organization conducted for the Prospect magazine shows that the majority of Britons believe that the number of immigrants is "the worst thing about Britain" (YouGov/Prospect Survey Results, April 2012 hhtp://yougoyv.co.uk; cf. Economist/Ipsos MORI, July 2015).

Similar concerns exist elsewhere in Europe, for example, in France and Germany ("All over Europe, immigration is moving in from the political fringes", Daily Telegraph, 23 Jun. 2012).

Content

• Is it Racist to oppose or express concern about Immigration?

• Why is Immigration a Problem?

• Is there a "need" for Immigrants?

• Who is Responsible for the current Immigration Problem?

• Has debate on Immigration been stifled?

• Have not the Conservatives put a cap on Immigration since 2010?

• Is there a Conspiracy to exterminate Britains indigenous population and replace it with Immigrants?

• What are the Motives behind this Policy?

• Immigration and the Church

• Anti-white Racism as Establishment Policy

• The Rochdale case and Anti-White Racism

• Race relations and the media: is football being "rocked by racism"?

• Race relations and the global charity deception

• Fair Trade, Starbucks and the travel industry

• The "Obama Generation" or the Anglo-American Establishment and the rise of the Mixed-Race Man

• What can be done to prevent the extinction of Europes indigenous population?

• Notes

• References

IS IT RACIST TO OPPOSE OR EXPRESS CONCERN ABOUT IMMIGRATION?

As immigration inevitably involves interracial relations, it is essential to clarify an important point from the outset, namely whether debate on or opposition to immigration is in any way racist.

In attempting to answer this question, we note that the dictionary definition of "racism", which is based on the established usage of the word, is "prejudice based on a belief in the superiority of a particular race" (Oxford English Dictionary). This is acknowledged by members of all races. For example, black writer Lindsay Johns admits that racism is making a pejorative judgement about someone based on their race (Daily Mail, 1 May 2012).

On this definition, opposition to immigration based on the indigenous populations inalienable right to life and self-determination cannot be racist as it involves neither prejudice nor belief in superiority. On balance, claims that opponents of immigration are "racists" are as absurd as saying that a house owner objecting to neighbours lodging themselves (or being lodged by the state) on his property is motivated by "prejudice" against the neighbours.

Indeed, a majority of randomly-selected non-white immigrants living in Britain (Jamaicans, Malaysians, South Asians, etc.) whom we interviewed in 2011-2012 spoke out against mass immigration. This demonstrates that opposition to immigration cannot be construed as "racist".

In addition, all leading politicians in Britain - Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron - have said that expressing concern about immigration is not racist.

According to Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair, concern over asylum and immigration was not about racism, but about fairness ("Full text: Blairs speech on asylum and immigration", Guardian, 22 Apr. 2005).

His successor Gordon Brown similarly declared that he had never agreed with the "lazy elitism" that portrays anyone who has concerns about immigration as a racist ("Gordon Browns immigration speech: what he said, and meant", Guardian, 12 Nov. 2009).

On his part, Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron has not only criticized those who regard opposition to immigration as racist, but has declared that control and reduction of immigration is of vital importance to the nations future ("David Cameron on immigration: full text of speech", Guardian, 14 Apr. 2011).

Far from being a "crime", opposition to immigration is a fundamental democratic right - as is opposition to any government policy - and the same applies to partiality and even to prejudice. After all, most of us are partial to, or prejudiced against, some thing or other. In fact, selection or accepting some things and rejecting others is a natural process that is fundamental to all aspects of human life from thinking and feeling to eating, dressing and choosing a partner, employer or employee.

It is not for a corrupt, immoral and self-seeking state that does more harm than good to its citizens and who, moreover, as a final insult, has conspired to dispossess and replace them, to regulate our innermost feelings and thoughts or dictate who we can or cannot share our ancestral homeland with.

Unfortunately, the immigration debate has not been led by mainstream politicians but has been hijacked by radical elements who are not accountable to the electorate. These elements have produced definitions of what constitutes racism, a racist action or racist incident, which are not based on established usage of the English language but are politically-motivated, recent inventions.

For example, according to the 1999 McPherson Report produced by a government inquiry (the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry), a racist incident is "any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person" (Recommendation 12). By this definition, racism is anything deemed to be such by anybody.

It must be noted that, in legal terms, "crime" is an offence regarded as such by the law and not "any incident which is perceived to be a crime by the victim or any other person".

The fact that racist incidents are treated differently from other incidents shows that the above definition is politically motivated and is intended as an instrument for suppressing all actions that are inconvenient to the ruling order.

Thus, the term "racist" becomes a subjective factor comparable to "reactionary" or "counter-revolutionary" used in Communist dictatorships to suppress opposition and dissent: everybody is "racist" (i.e., criminal) who is not a supporter of the Lefts mandatory party line.

Indeed, we find that the UK Independence Party (UKIP) which is said to be anti-immigrant, is routinely referred to as "xenophobic", "far-right" and, tellingly, "counter-revolutionary" in left-wing publications (see Ford & Goodwins Revolt on the Right and other writings).

In an illustration of the absurd lengths to which the anti-racism industry is prepared to go in order to promote its agenda, Britains National Childrens Bureau (NCB) has infamously demanded that British childrens dislike of foreign food be treated as a "racist incident" ("Toddlers who dislike spicy food racist," Daily Telegraph, 7 Jul. 2008). In this elite-engineered surreal scenario, the Lefts propaganda operatives are able to misrepresent anti-British cultural imperialism and oppression as "fight against racism".

While such draconic application of the law to children may be worthy of Stalinist Russia, in an ostensibly liberal democratic system the same definition should allow the counter-claim that immigrants dislike of British food is a racist incident.

Similarly, the claim that opposition to immigration is "racist" can be met by the counter-claim that state-imposed mass immigration itself is racist. Indeed, the belief that Europeans are incapable of running their own countries without immigrant assistance is as racist as the colonial belief that non-Europeans were incapable of ruling themselves.

In other words, the majority must learn how to make use of the law - and of plain logic or common sense - to defend its own interests. Should the majority prove unable to do so, this would mean that the system is, in the last analysis, undemocratic and in urgent need of change.

WHY IS IMMIGRATION A PROBLEM?

Surveys by the US German Marshall Fund (GMF) and other organizations have shown that the majority of Britons (over 60%) see immigration as a problem ("Transatlantic Trends: Immigration 2010"; trends.gmfus.org).

Therefore, establishing why immigration is a problem is the principal task of the present discussion. The fact is that small numbers of immigrants who are prepared to assimilate into the indigenous population have never been a problem. The problem is:

• State-imposed Mass Immigration

• and, in particular, mass immigration of groups that refuse to be assimilated.

Specific points of concern are: who is coming into the country? How many are coming? Who decides on this? Do they assimilate? What are the effects of mass-immigration on the indigenous population? What are the legal implications for the indigenous population?

1. Who is coming into the country?

At present, practically anybody can come and live in Britain either as an asylum seeker, migrant worker, visitor, student, legal or illegal immigrant.

2. How many are coming into the country?

There are no official figures for the total number of illegal immigrants and figures for persons legally entering or living in Britain are deliberately played down so as to deceive the indigenous population about the true extent of immigration ("Stop lying about immigration", Evening Standard, 26 Sept. 2011).

However, official figures show that there are hundreds of thousands (up to a quarter million) per year. Moreover, people go by what they see with their own eyes and, on that basis, the majority (59%) of Britons believe there are too many immigrants in the country.

3. Who decides on the number of immigrants?

The British people have absolutely no say on how many immigrants should be allowed into the country. This decision is made by politicians independently of and contrary to the will of the people.

4. Do immigrants assimilate?

There are three aspects to the assimilation problem:

(a) there are a rising number of immigrants who refuse to be assimilated into the general population;

(b) immigrants are encouraged by vested interests (multiculturalist political elites, religious groups, etc.) to resist assimilation;

All this leads to the creation of a multi-national society of competing nationalities, with ethnic and cultural communities as hotbeds of separatism and conflict, and clearly contradicts the official claim that immigration automatically makes a country "better".

5. What are the effects of mass-immigration on the indigenous society and culture?

Unlimited mass-immigration must lead to significant changes in indigenous society and culture. There is no evidence that these changes are of any benefit to the indigenous population. On the other hand, there is evidence of negative effects, for example:

(a) Mass immigration restricts the indigenous populations access to resources like water, food, territory, housing, health care, transport and schools.

(b) Mass immigration drives wages down and living costs up.

(c) Mass immigration leads to insufficiently assimilated or integrated migrant individuals and groups, which in turn leads to a rise in corruption, crime and general social breakdown in the host society.

(d) Mass immigration contributes to a rise in contagious diseases. For example, a significant number of asylum seekers come from countries with a higher incidence of TB and AIDS (Home Office, Asylum Statistics: 4th Quarter 2007).

It may be noted in this context that according to Nick Davies of the pro-immigration (and Rothschild-associated) Guardian, rival newspapers like the Daily Mail "fall on falsehood and distortion" in their treatment of immigration. As an example, he gives a story run by the Mail in July 2003, according to which asylum seekers infected with the AIDS virus were putting public health at risk. Davies allegedly found that those who were infected came from countries which "tended not to produce asylum applications" (Davies, p. 374).

In fact, the story happens to be one example where the Mail does not fall on falsehood and distortion (though, as indicated below, there are other examples where it does). A 2008 report by the National Aids Trust (NAT), which is partly based on Home Office data, states:

"three-fifths (60%) of all HIV cases reported in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2006 were cases where the individual had been born outside the UK"; and "a large number of asylum applicants come from high HIV prevalence countries" (HIV and the UK Asylum Pathway, p. 3).

(e) Sustained mass immigration results in irreparable genetic loss to the host population.

6. What are the legal implications of mass immigration for the indigenous population?

State-imposed mass immigration implies that the indigenous population has no rights to the territory it lives on and, by extension (as life is impossible without territory), no right to life. This conclusion is supported by EU officials statements to the effect that restricting immigration from the EU is illegal in EU law (Riley-Smith, 2014).

Last but not least, mass immigration, particularly when members of the immigrant population are able to acquire positions of authority or higher status in relation to the host population is a form of colonialism, which is unacceptable in a democracy.

IS THERE A "NEED" FOR IMMIGRANTS?

This question is investigated here on data related to Britain as a representative example, but the results are largely applicable to other European or Western countries. Specifically, it has been claimed that

• Britain "needs skilled workers";

• "immigration is good for the economy";

• immigration "creates jobs";

• Britain "needs immigration to sustain the current population level" etc.

The following facts expose the Big Immigration Lie:

1. Not all immigrants are skilled, many are unskilled. Even skilled immigrants may have unskilled wives, children or parents. Along with the "skilled workers" there are a high number of unskilled workers.

2. Many immigrants - housewives, children, students, retired persons - are economically inactive, i.e., non-workers. This is particularly the case with immigrants who come to Britain (and Europe) in the context of "family reunification" and, failing to meet labour market requirements, struggle to find work (Lords Select Committee, pp. 17-18).

In the 1950s and 60s many immigrants came to Britain to take up employment. By 1997, only 12 per cent of immigrants from the former New Commonwealth entered Britain for work (Caldwell, p. 41).

Official reports show that immigrants are more likely to be out of work than British people ("Labours cover-up on immigration to be laid bare" Sunday Telegraph, 25 Sept. 2011). It follows that the proportion of skilled workers, indeed of workers in general, to the total immigrant population is much lower than it is claimed.

3. Even if all immigrants were skilled (which they are not), it does not mean that they all have the skills British economy needs. Nor is there a system to ensure that those who come to Britain have the required skills.

4. If Britain is short on skilled workers, this is obviously a failure of the education system and the question must be raised as to whether this failure is accidental or deliberate.

In either case, the solution is to reform the education system and train local workers, not to import foreign ones. This is particularly imperative in view of the fact that, as admitted by Peter Sutherland, shortage of workers in the European Union is to be found at the lowest rather than at the top skill level (Lords Select Committee, p. 13), which further exposes the disingenuity of the pro-immigration camp.

5. Saying that immigration is good for the economy implies that everything is acceptable as long as it brings financial profit. Thus, from the outset, this claim exposes the moral bankruptcy of the pro-immigration camp.

In addition, while it may be acceptable to believe that immigration is "good" for the economy when the economy is strong, it seems irrational to cling on to the same belief when the economy evidently is on a downward path despite a massive influx of immigrants.

Moreover, economic systems are not God-given; they are man-made. And if man can create economies that depend on immigrants, he can equally well devise an economy that does not. As no attempt is being made to do so, this suggests an ulterior motive on the part of the authorities responsible. What these motives are will become apparent from the evidence considered below.

Meanwhile, suffice it to note that the relentless emphasis on economic considerations irrespective of the realities on the ground is a long-established tactic to deflect attention from other issues.

6. Even assuming that immigration is "good" for the economy in some ways, there is no doubt that it is bad in other ways. For example, illegal immigrants do not pay taxes. Most immigrants send money back home, exporting capital that should be reinvested in British economy, not taken out of the country, etc.

7. If immigration creates new jobs, then the more immigration there is the more new jobs are created. But the more new jobs are created, the greater becomes the need for immigration. It follows that instead of resolving anything, immigration creates an inescapable vicious circle amounting to permanent dependence (or addiction) to immigration and loss of freedom and independence to the indigenous population.

8. As admitted by a number of political leaders, including pro-immigration ones like Labour Party leader Ed Miliband, immigration brings not only benefits but also costs (E. Miliband, "Immigration brings costs as well as benefits, Evening Standard, 22 Jun. 2012).

Particularly important in the current economic situation is the loss of employment caused to the indigenous population by mass immigration, especially from outside the EU. As conceded by the Migration Advisory Committee, one hundred additional non-EU immigrants result in a "reduction in employment of 23 native workers" (MAC, "Analysis of the Impacts of Migration", Jan. 2012).

9. Immigration is one of the causes behind the rise in crime levels. For example, religion-motivated terrorism, honour killings, forced marriage, child marriage, polygamy, genital mutilation, are culture specific crimes that are directly linkable to the immigrant population. [*]

[*] My note.

Western crime statistics indicate extremely high crime rates among Muslim immigrants. For example:

• 84% of pedophile crimes against British children are committed by Muslims from Asian countries (Daily Mail, December 9, 2017).

• In the US, the proportion of Muslims in prison is nine times higher than their proportion of the general population (Front Page Mag, August 5, 2019).

• In France in 2015, Muslims constituted approximately 8% of the population, but their proportion among prisoners reached 60% (Middle East Forum, August 30, 2015).

• According to official data, at least 75% of criminals in Berlin are Arab immigrants and their descendants born in Germany (National Vanguard, January 12, 2022).

These data lead to the conclusion that Islam is the religion of people with an extremely high propensity for criminality. The only way to keep such people within the law is through fear of cruel punishment, including amputation of limbs and beheading. This is precisely what Islamic Sharia is - a cruel law for cruel people.

End of my note.

10. Importing people from abroad is an irrational and perverse approach to demographic problems. To maintain a countrys population level, all that is needed is for indigenous couples to have more children and government policies in this regard to be introduced.

11. Nobody knows how many illegal immigrants there are in Britain. Estimates range between 250,000 (Migration Watch UK) and 500,000 (Home Office), with some sources giving an upper limit of 1 million (UK Border Force, Sky2, 10 Jun. 2012).

As it is not known who they are or what they are doing in Britain, nothing definite can be said on their effect on British economy and culture. However, we do know that a significant number of the illegal immigrants who have been tracked down by the authorities are small-time criminals, terrorists or fraudsters ("Lost in administration: Scandal over illegal immigrants hidden among 37,000 files of foreigners appealing to stay in Britain", Daily Mail, 15 Oct 2011).

There is no reason to believe that those who are still at large are any better. They certainly do not pay taxes and if any of them are in employment they take away jobs from people who are here legally, including indigenous Britons. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that the overall impact of illegal immigration on British society is negative.

12. The truth is that immigration serves the interests of self-seeking and corrupt employers who are looking for cheap labour and would rather pay low wages to immigrants than pay decent wages to British workers. Inevitably, this results in lower living standards for the indigenous population (Lilley, 2006).

As a number of studies have shown, mass immigration has pushed wages down ("Hello, world", The Economist, 30 Jun. 2012). Even in traditional immigration countries like America, salaries have decreased for the first time on record, despite or because of unprecedented mass immigration ("5 Most Surprising Findings From the 2010 Census", Time, 20. Dec. 2011).

13. Above all, immigration serves the interests of left-wing political elites using the votes of the immigrant community to advance their own agendas. Even in the 2010 general election, when Labour was highly unpopular with the majority of Britons, it was backed by over 60 per cent of minority and immigrant voters (see also "How the Government pays Muslims to vote Labour", Daily Telegraph, 17 March 2009).

This leads to the next big question:

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CURRENT IMMIGRATION PROBLEM?

In 1948, Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee passed the British Nationality Act allowing all inhabitants of the British Empire to enter, live and work in the UK without restriction. At first, this was not a problem as immigration levels at the time were relatively low. However, this soon changed.

As immigration levels began to rise, public opinion forced the introduction of some restrictions. In spite of this, the Labour Partys policy over time has been to allow more and more immigrants into Britain under various false pretences like the "need of skilled workers", etc.

No explanation was given as to why Britain had fewer skilled workers than Third World countries. Instead, in 1997-2010, the Labour government imposed a deliberate and systematic relaxation of immigration controls "to open up the UK to mass migration" in order to make it "more multicultural" ("Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser", Daily Telegraph, 23 Oct. 2009).

All this, of course, exposes the unbelievable opportunism of the architects of mass immigration: in an extraordinary political and ideological U-turn, the same establishment who in the 1800s pleaded for Africas and South Asias "need" of European colonists is now, incredibly, pleading for Europes "need" of colonization by Africans and South Asians.

While Europe was once said to "depend" on one form of colonialism, it is now said to depend on another. While European colonialism is being indicted as a crime, non-European colonization of Europe is being praised and promoted as a virtue.

The immigrants themselves are indulging in the same kind of opportunism: Africans and Indians once calling for Europeans to quit Africa and India - even throwing bombs at them to press their point - now insist on the "right" to settle in Europe at will.

On their part, the same groups fighting for the "human rights" of immigrants, systematically and deliberately ignore, deny or suppress the rights of Europes indigenous population.

HAS DEBATE ON IMMIGRATION BEEN STIFLED?

While opening up the country to unrestricted immigration through an illegal "Open Doors" policy, Labour has also sought to stifle debate on the problem by deploying a range of tactics such as:

1. Ignoring, covering up or denying problems caused by immigration.

2. Systematically avoiding discussion. Already in the 1960s, Labour Home Secretary Roy Jenkins expressed pleasure that the "sterile debate about the precise level of immigration was put behind us" (Banton, p. 71).

3. Falsely claiming the "moral high ground". For example, leading Labourite and Fabian Socialist Jack Straw referred to British National Party (BNP) leader Nick Griffin as a "man who defines his politics by race rather than by moral values" (BBC Question Time, 22 Oct. 2009), without explaining what "moral value" Labours policy of state-enforced mass immigration and resulting replacement of the indigenous population might have.

4. Accusing those who oppose immigration of "racism".

5. Claiming that "The number of people entering the country, minus the number leaving - has actually been falling" ("Tony Blairs speech on immigration in full", The Sunday Times, 22 Apr. 2005), which ignores the fact that the immigrant population, especially in relation to the indigenous population, is actually growing due to specific factors like immigration, higher birth rates in the immigrant population, marriage outside Britain, etc.

6. Blatantly lying about the true extent of immigration ("Labour lied to public about immigration, says Ed Milibands aide Lord Glasman", Daily Telegraph, 17 Apr. 2011).

7. Doing what all politicians do - doing nothing, promising to do something when cornered, still doing nothing: If elected for a third term, Labour promised to introduce finger-printing of all visa applicants; bring in a points system; phase out low skill immigration schemes; bring in fixed penalty fines for each illegal employee; restrict the right of settlement to skilled workers; end chain migration, etc. ("Tony Blairs speech on immigration in full", The Sunday Times, 22 Apr. 2005).

That Labour failed to put a curb on immigration even in its third term soon became clear. The question is why Labour did nothing in the previous two terms, in the first place.

Even worse, the evidence shows that Labour did the exact opposite to what it had promised: According to Home Office figures a total of 238,950 immigrants were granted settlement in the last year (2009-2010) of the Labour regime alone. This was the highest figure since the 1960s.

Over half a million "students" were allowed into the country with no interviews before arrival or checks on departures. Labours points-based system increased not reduced immigration ("Record numbers given settlement in Labours last year", Daily Telegraph, 26 Sept. 2011).

Margaret Hodge, then Labour Minister for Culture, while acknowledging the problem of immigration and the need for new policies, claimed that it was not about race but about a system which is transparent and fair ("The BNP tap into peoples frustrations: Margaret Hodge on her plans to introduce a points system for immigrants", Daily Mail, 4 Feb. 2010).

This is untrue. It isnt about a system that is "transparent" or "fair". Its about a system which people actually want as opposed to one imposed on them by traitor governments. In other words, it is about democracy vs. dictatorship.

In pursuing such diversionary tactics, pro-immigration politicians behave like police negotiators who use psychological manipulation to mislead criminals - thus effectively treating the public like outlaws.

These tactics are entirely in line with the recommendations of the political elites Fabian masterminds, as evident from the statements of leading Fabians like Fabian Society general secretary Andrew Harrop to the effect that concerns about immigration should be caused to subside or broaden and that talking about immigration "helps to moderate opinion" (Harrop, pp. 97-100), in a clear allusion to the psychological fact that talking about a given concern makes the concerned person "feel better" and renders them more open to "solutions" suggested by the interlocutor.

HAVE NOT THE CONSERVATIVES PUT A CAP ON IMMIGRATION SINCE 2010?

According to Margaret Hodge, chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, mass immigration is here to stay and those who say "we will cut the numbers, are lying" ("Stop lying about immigration", Evening Standard, 26 Sept. 2011).

Indeed, our own investigations have found that immigration continues unabated. High streets and inner cities continue to be colonized by South Asians, Black and North Africans and other immigrant groups as before, if not even more so (the most recent official figures show that immigration levels in 2014 were higher than those of 2010).

Clearly, channels remain open through which "students", "visitors", "migrant workers", "husbands", "wives", legal or illegal, keep coming in. The discovery of visa forgery factories in places like Bangladesh suggests one way through which immigration controls are being systematically circumvented ("Visa forgery factory shut down", 24 July 2011; www.homeoffice.gov.uk).

As shown by Home Office documents another avenue for illegal immigration is colleges bringing thousands of foreign "students" into the country ("170 colleges shut down in blitz on sham students", Evening Standard, 2 Nov. 2011).

As a mark of how critical the situation has become, hundreds of colleges (500 in 2012) have had their licenses revoked and others have been banned from recruiting foreign students.

But new bogus colleges are being set up and thousands of foreign students, including far-left and Islamist subversives, are allowed to enroll in British universities (see London School of Economics) quite legally. Needless to say, once in the country, many of the students (both bogus and genuine) stay on (Lords Select Committee, p. 16).

Who determines immigration policy?

Above all, the failure to stem the immigration influx has to do with the bodies advising the Government, one of which has been the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC).

The Committee was supposed to be an "independent" panel of economists. However, the very fact that economists were appointed to decide on immigration issues shows, once again, that government policy was driven by financial interests - which reflects the Fabian aim of creating a society ruled by London School of Economics-trained economists with links to certain members of the corporate community.

Indeed, MACs origin and membership expose its connections to Fabian Socialist institutions funded by the said financial interests. It was founded in 2007 by Labours Fabian Home Secretary John Reid and was chaired by Professor David Metcalf, Emeritus Professor at the Centre for Economic Performance at London School of Economics (LSE).

As admitted by LSE chairman Peter Sutherland, "there is hardly one university that compares to the LSE in terms of the total number of students from outside the European Union".

Indeed, LSE has a long-established interest in foreign students, regarding them as a tool for spreading its subversive ideology throughout the world and, as their numbers rose (reaching over 40% by the 1980s), as an indispensable source of income. The LSE, therefore, admittedly takes the UK government target of reducing the number of immigrant students "terribly seriously" (Lords Select Committee, p. 15).

Given the reduced income for the LSE that would result from such a reduction, it is not difficult to see why its leadership and, by extension, the MAC itself, is "deeply worried" by the prospect of an immigration cap as it is about visa restrictions for students and will do everything in their power to prevent such measures.

Among MAC members we also find Dr Martin Ruhs, director of Oxford Universitys Migration Observatory which has close links to the pro-immigration Oxford Martin School (founded by Rockefeller and Soros interests). Ruhs himself has served as adviser to a string of pro-immigrant, money power bodies like:

• the International Labour Organization (ILO),

• the International Organization for Migration (IOM),

• the Global Commission on International Migration (GCIM) and

• the UN Development Programme (UNDP).

Ruhs has declared himself in favour of immigration, asserting that it represents a "significant subsidy to the UK public sector" (Boxell & Frey, 2010).

Likewise, his colleague Dr Diane Coyle has a degree in Economics from Harvard University and is a former economics editor for the pro-immigrant Independent (UK Border Agency www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk).

As the Committees members were reappointed in 2010, it is unrealistic to expect a change of policy in the foreseeable future, no matter what kind of government happens to be in office.

Nor is MAC the only culprit. The UK Border Agency (UKBA) itself was formed in 2008 by the Labour regimes Fabian Immigration Minister and Progress co-founder Liam Byrne, a former Rothschild banker who is also co-founder of the Young Fabians magazine Anticipations.

Clearly, advisory bodies like MAC, operating behind the scenes and in collaboration with subversive elements among immigration and border control officials, have ensured that, as shown by official figures, immigration has been constantly on the rise since the 1950s irrespective of the party in government.

In short, the influence of organizations like MAC on national immigration policies is comparable to that exerted by the UN Forum on Migration (funded by the pro-immigration MacArthur Foundation) on EU policies. (See also Note 2 at the end of the chapter).

In addition to its patent inability to purge the system of subversive elements, there have been other disturbing features of the Conservative Government and, in particular, of the Conservative Party (or factions thereof):

(1) the policy of putting a cap on immigration from the EU when official figures show that the vast majority of immigrants into the UK are in fact from outside the EU;

(2) the argument that immigrants are "natural Conservatives" (Graham, 2014) which ignores some important facts, e.g.,

• that Muslim conservatives seeking to convert the country to Islam are not the same as indigenous Christian conservatives,

• that most immigrants vote for Labour and

• that immigration resulting in ethnic and cultural replacement is contrary to authentic Conservatism which, by definition, aims to preserve indigenous society and its ethnic and cultural identity;

and (3) support for non-indigenous British citizens like the Ghanaian Adam Afriyie for the post of Prime Minister (Walters, Brendan & Owen, 2013. See also n. 3, p. 410).

In sum, given the rapid growth of the existing immigrant population, what is really needed is not a "cap" but a total ban on immigration (especially from outside Europe) and on pro-immigration groups influence on government policy. Unfortunately, there is no chance of this happening as long as the country is run by fraudulent "governments" acting on the advice of bodies with links to the international money power.

IS THERE A CONSPIRACY TO EXTERMINATE BRITAINS INDIGENOUS POPULATION AND REPLACE IT WITH IMMIGRANTS?

Leaders of the Right have been unfairly attacked for saying that a deliberate "bloodless genocide" on British people is taking place. However, when a crime or suspicion of a crime being committed is reported, it is the authorities duty to investigate that claim.

As a crime against humanity, genocide is a very serious offence in international law. Some key questions that have to be asked as part of any investigation are: is it possible? Is it likely? Is there any evidence?

Is it possible?

As admitted by leading politicians like Margaret Hodge, mass immigration is here to stay (Evening Standard, 26 Sept. 2011). In demographic terms, unrestricted immigration over a prolonged period of time combined with the growth of the existing immigrant population on one hand, and stagnation or decline of the indigenous population on the other hand, results in the partial or total replacement (i.e., extinction) of the indigenous population.

Is it likely?

On the current growth of the immigrant population relative to the host population, the gradual extinction of the indigenous population is not only possible, but likely. Lee Jasper of the "National Assembly Against Racism" himself has conceded that there could be a majority black Britain by the turn of the century.

In fact, it is unlikely we will have to wait that long.Demographic studies show that Europes white population will become a minority by 2050 ("The last days of a white world", Observer, 3 Sept. 2000).

The big question is: Is there any evidence that this process is the deliberate doing of politicians?

Here are the facts:

• The fact is that the British Nationality Act which allowed all the subjects of the British Empire (totalling nearly 800 million) to live and work in the UK without a visa was passed by Parliament in 1948 - under Labour PM Clement Attlee.

In 1966, Labour Home Secretary Roy Jenkins introduced the policy of "cultural diversity" or multiculturalism. (It should be noted that, in Britain, the Left-controlled Home Office has been responsible for the immigration system.)

• The fact is that multiculturalism was closely linked to multiracialism, that is, it was based on the idea that Britain was to become a multiracial society as a matter of official policy.

• The fact is that the idea of imposing racial quotas was promoted by Labour politicians like John Carr of the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) (Lewis, p. 140).

• The fact is that under the 1997-2010 Labour regime of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, there was a sharp rise in immigration, bringing the growth of the immigrant population up to nearly 239,000 per year.

Andrew Neather, former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett has revealed that

Labours relaxation of immigration controls was a deliberate plan "to open up the UK to mass migration" in order to make it "more multicultural" ("Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser", Daily Telegraph, 23 Oct. 2009).

As pointed out by Conservative MP Peter Lilley,

"The huge rise in immigration didnt just happen. It was the result of a battery of deliberate changes in laws, rule and administrative procedures introduced by the last Labour government" (Lilley, 2012).

On the available evidence, there can be no doubt that the policy of enforced mass immigration has been deliberate. Moreover, British policy reflects a broader effort by UN and EU authorities to create "multicultural nations" through immigration (see Sutherland, below).

Making a society multicultural through immigration means making it multiracial. And deliberately making a society multiracial means deliberately reducing the indigenous racial component of that society and replacing it with alien elements.

In our view, this comes very close to the accepted definition of genocide.

WHAT ARE THE MOTIVES BEHIND THIS POLICY?

The motives behind the Lefts immigration policies ought to be quite obvious, were it not for the collective ignorance and blindness which seem to have descended upon Western society in general and British society, in particular, as a result of decades of political and psychological mass propaganda, indoctrination and manipulation. As an instrument of the money power, the media play a key role in this.

A staple tactic, also generously used by the political establishment, is to reveal something in order to conceal something else. This tactic muddles the issue, distracts public attention and deflects criticism - effectively concealing the true culprits and their intentions and protecting their interests.

A typical example is a piece published by the Daily Mail in response to Labour leader Ed Milibands speech on immigration. Its author, Stephen Glover, points out Labours belief that cheap labour was vital to British economy and that immigrants from outside the EU were likely to vote for a leftist party (like Labour).

However, while Glover correctly identifies the procurement of cheap labour and winning the immigrant vote as key objectives of Labours immigration polices, these are not Labours only aims. Another objective Glover might have listed is the demographic transformation taking place in Britain, which he casually mentions, contenting himself with describing it as "irreversible" ("So Labour now says its NOT racist to debate immigration. What sick hypocrisy", Daily Mail, 23 Jun. 2012).

Irreversible or not, drastic demographic changes would be the most immediate and obvious result of a policy of mass immigration even before cheap labour and electoral advantages: immigrants are physically present in the country before providing cheap labour or voting for left-wing parties. It follows that demographic changes must have been as deliberate as the other two objectives.

Yet the Mail is silent precisely on this point which ought to be the most important to its readers. Its silence is all the more peculiar as the same article mentions the YouGov/Prospect survey (see above) indicating that what Britons find worst about their country is the number of immigrants, whereas they are far less concerned about economic issues.

On reflection, they have very good reason for making immigration a top priority: Britains indigenous population will survive low wages and immigrant support for left-wing parties, but not being replaced with immigrants - which is where the current demographic changes are leading.

Another essential point overlooked by the Mail is the links between immigration policies and financial interests. A more thorough and critical investigation by the supposedly "centre-right" press might have started with a secret paper written in 2000, according to which the Labour Partys intention was to "maximize the contribution of migration to the Governments economic and social objectives" ("Labours secret plan to lure migrants", Daily Telegraph, 9 Feb. 2010).

The "economic objectives" are quite obvious. They are:

• to keep wages down (which is what "cheap labour" amounts to);

• to increase the profits of corrupt employers;

• to attract monetary rewards from pro-immigration donors;

• to increase the income of corrupt politicians, political parties, governments

• as well as race relations, human rights and associated industries;

• and, as noted by the Daily Mail, to win the immigrant vote.

However, the political establishments obsessive emphasis on economic considerations clearly exposes domestic and international financial interests as the primary movers behind mass immigration (and behind Labour policy). Thus, the governor of the Bank of England, Sir Mervyn King, is on record as saying that cheap foreign labour helps keep wages down. Lord Digby Jones, director-general of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) which was created by Shell, BP, Ford and associated interests, has declared that a cap on immigration would reduce the "flexibility" of the British labour market ("Figuring out role of migrant workers", Financial Times, 4 May 2005).

Self-exposing propaganda of the money power

Perhaps most revealing of all is the stand of the money power organs, the Financial Times (FT), and The Economist.

Writing in the FT, which is owned by the Lazard-associated Pearson, former Wall Street Journal editor Amity Shlaes wrote that the aim of any party should be to win the votes of immigrants and friends of immigrants ("The right must learn the comfort of the strangers: Conservatives are falling into the same trap as Republicans by railing against immigration, not supporting growth", FT, 10 Apr. 2001).

The Economist, co-owned by the pro-immigration Rothschilds who have opposed immigration control since the early 1900s (Ferguson, pp. 277-8), has claimed that restricting the number of talented immigrants damages the Citys prospects ("Global finance: Save the City", The Economist, 7 Jan. 2012).

This, of course, begs the question as to why the City of London cannot find talented Britons in the first place. But even if talented Britons were to be found, The Economist would not seem to want them, adhering instead to the quasi-religious belief that it is immigration that keeps Londons (and Britains) economy "buzzing".

To the general public, terms like "buzzing economy" and "economic growth" suggest greater opportunity to earn a living, higher living standards or, simply, more jobs and higher wages. In money-power talk, "buzzing economy" or "economic growth" means an increase in the production of goods and services. The fact is that, as shown above, mass immigration has pushed wages down and housing costs up.

At the same time, research (published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation) shows the cost of living rising at twice the rate of inflation and going up by a third since 2008. In addition, there is a universally-acknowledged economic slowdown of which even The Economist must be aware.

Clearly, "buzzing economy", "economic growth" and other such buzz-words are meaningless if wages are going down, housing and living costs are going up, poverty and unemployment are soaring and the economy is in recession. Indeed, 2015 figures show that, despite mass immigration, the productivity growth of major Western economies from the US to Germany to Britain is actually slowing (ONS).

It follows that the immigration-driven "economic wonder" trumpeted by the Western worlds economic "experts" is just what it sounds like, namely a gigantic hoax.

Regardless of unemployment, low wages, rising living costs, etc., The Economist notes with approval that foreigners have contributed to rising property prices, which allegedly is good for property owners who, as a result, are "sitting on large piles of cash" and are free to move elsewhere.

The magazine is aware of the impact the mass immigration it supports has on the indigenous population, noting that according to a 1994 survey many Londoners would like to live outside a city where there are fewer non-white people ("Londons comings and goings", The Economist, 9 Aug. 2003).

It is reasonable to infer from this and similar statements that not only the Labour Party but the money power itself is in favour of the indigenous population being replaced with foreigners (see also Leo McKinstry, "How The Government Has Declared War On White English People", Daily Express, 9 Aug. 2007).

Socialism approves of the extermination of classes, peoples and races

As pointed out earlier, economists could easily devise an economy that does not depend on immigrants. The fact that they make no effort to do so, suggests an ulterior motive. This brings us to the "social objectives" of Socialist organizations like the Labour Party. To better understand these objectives, it is essential to recall Labours connections with Marxism and Fabian Socialism as well as the connections of al! three with certain financial interests.

Incidentally, we find that a search for "Fabian Socialism" on the Daily Mails website yields only three results. However, the tabloid does mention (in a July 2008 article) the fact that Labour founders and leaders like Bernard Shaw and Sidney Webb were not only great admirers of Marx and his co-conspirator Engels, but also of Soviet Russia which was run on Marxist-Engelsist principles.

Indeed, further research shows that Labour governments, including Harold Wilsons 1964-70 regime, believed in Soviet Russia as a model for Britain (Callaghan, p. 200).

But Soviet Russia was not only a repressive regime. It was also responsible for the systematic murder of millions of its own citizens, a policy it had taken out of Marx and Engels book. The latter wrote that the Socialist world revolution will result in the disappearance not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples, whose annihilation will be a "step forward" (see Ch. 1, Socialism).

It is indisputable therefore that social engineering in Marxism entailed the extermination of entire classes, nations and races which were inconvenient to Socialist agendas. The idea had become so prevalent that, as pointed out by Bernard Shaw, there was a growing perception that

"if we desire a certain type of civilization and culture we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit into it" (see Ch. 2, The Fabian Conspiracy).

"Racial diversity" is a new term for the old socialist practice of genocide

Of course, Marx, Engels and Shaws ideological successors are careful to avoid using the word "extermination". Instead, the New Lefts discourse revolves on seemingly "harmless" terminology like "racial diversity" which is promoted on the spurious theory that "diversity strengthens a nation" - as claimed by race relations adviser Lee Jasper ("The last days of a white world", Observer, 3 Sept. 2000).

But the parallels between Marxist-Leninist and "Social Democratic" thinking are undeniable. The Marxist promotion of "oppressed" and "exploited" non-European races (Africans, Chinese, Indians) in combination with politically motivated anti-colonial sentiments led to the radical left perception that whites were the sort of people who "did not fit in".

In West European and American Socialist ideology, whites came to be perceived as the "oppressive", "reactionary" race to be opposed and eradicated by the non-white, "oppressed" and "progressive" races. This is how Marxist social engineering became racial engineering directed against whites.

Nor was hatred of certain classes and races limited to Marxist-Leninist and Social Democratic thinking. It penetrated the upper echelons of "respectable" liberal democracy. It must be recalled that British Prime Minister Winston Churchill himself, a Liberal masquerading as "Conservative", advocated the sterilization of "inferior races".

It cannot be mere coincidence that Churchill - who believed that Germans were a "beastly race" (along with Indians) and surrounded himself with Germanophobic elements - and his collaborator, US Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau were responsible for the Morgenthau Plan which resulted in the death of millions of innocent and defenseless German men, women and children after the Second World War (Dietrich, pp. 107-8). It may be said without exaggeration that these were the first sacrificial victims of the money powers New World Order.

Inevitably, the Anglo-American Establishments hatred of Boers and Germans - systematically encouraged and promoted by the mass media - soon extended to white South Africans in general (including those of English extraction) and, eventually, to the whole of the white race, developing, in effect, into white self-hatred or what Peter Bauer identified as the "liberal death-wish" syndrome (Bauer, 2000, pp. 73 ff.).

As we learn from members of the left-wing scene of the time, the Marxist-influenced post-war generation was a generation that "hated white civilization" which it believed "belonged in the dustbin of history" (Doris Lessing, Under My Skin, 1994), a trend started by Fabians like Edward Carpenter (see Civilisation: Its Cause and Cure).

The transition from hatred of white civilization to hatred of white people required no great psychological effort. Indeed, hatred of white civilization is inextricably linked to hatred of the white people who created it, though this may not always be articulated or, for that matter, consciously registered.

Even among those not known for their Marxist thinking, there were some like Laurens van der Post (the self-appointed guru to Britains progressive elites), who preferred the non-white races to their own. Operating through puppets like van der Post, the worlds financial, political and religious elites have taken a leading role in the promotion of anti-white projects.

As pointed out by the sociologist Lewis Feuer, under the reinforcing influence of Marxist teachings, white Western ideologists feel a "strange elevation" in fulfilling a self-punitive (masochistic) role, while international organizations experience an "exaltation of holiness" as they enact resolutions against Western, that is, their own, civilization (Feuer, 108).

Thus, in the final analysis, the Wests "counter-culture" and "student-revolution" generations rebelled not so much against the Establishment (which remained firmly in place) as they rebelled against themselves and their own kind. Masterly manipulated and misdirected, the whole movement has degenerated into a futile exercise in collective self-harm.

In other words, the Establishment has successfully transformed a movement against itself into a movement against its adversaries. In this process, immigrants have been the Establishments natural and very obvious allies.

IMMIGRATION AND THE CHURCH

While other sections of the Establishment shifted their allegiance from their fellow nationals to foreign interests and immigrants, the Church might have been expected to be a rock against the antinational tide sweeping over Britain and other Western countries. After all, Western society is based on the unchanging values of Christian tradition which the Church is supposed to uphold and defend.

Foremost among these values is righteousness which as Scripture shows consists of truth, order and justice:

• God, Whom the Bible beautifully describes as the Sun of Righteousness (KJV Mal. 4:2; Ps. 84:11) is the highest truth;

• the natural order which God established when He made heaven and earth by His breath or spirit (Ps. 33:6) and which can be seen in the orderly manner heavenly bodies are positioned in the sky, in the rhythmic rising and setting of the sun, in the division of time into days and nights, in the change of the seasons, in the biological cycle of birth, growth and death, etc., is a revelation of divine truth and the right order of things upon which Gods creation is built (Gen. 1:14; Rom. 1:19-20; Wis. 11:20; St Aug., p. 432);

• and justice is the adherence to the divine law whereby truth and order are upheld in human society (Ezek. 45:9).

The Christian concept of Righteousness (Greek Dikaiosyne from dikaios, "upright", "righteous", "virtuous", "keeping the commands of God") goes back to the Gospels and, beyond them, to Ancient Greece, the cradle of European civilization (p. 410, note 1).

The very first commandment taught by Christ is to love God (Mark 12:28-30). But to love God, our Heavenly Father, in the Biblical sense means to dutifully act according to His Law. Thus, obedience to the Law of God and upholding righteousness, that is, truth, order and justice on earth is the highest duty of all Christians and, above all, of the Christian Church.

The ideal Christian society, or Kingdom of God, is defined by righteousness, peace and joy (Rom. 14:7). Only by the steadfast adherence to righteousness, to the right vision, right belief and right action, can man (both individually and collectively) attain real and lasting peace and joy (cf. Politeia 473e).

Adherence to righteousness, therefore, is not so much a choice as it is a duty which man owes to God, to his fellow men and to himself. It is a duty that obliges us to oppose everything that violates righteousness, for example, anti-national and anti-Christian policies such as mass immigration, multiculturalism and Islamization - policies which go against established truth, order and justice.

The second commandment taught by Christ, namely, to love ones neighbour (Mark 12:31),cannot be used - as relativist and obscurantist Church leaders have attempted to do - to override the first. Jt cannot be used to promote mass immigration:

• firstly, because "neighbour" in Christs sermons refers, for the most part, to members of the same community, not to strangers or immigrants from other parts of the world;

• secondly, because if we truly love our neighbours, we cannot put the interests of strangers above those of our neighbours, nor the interests of other communities or nations above those of our own;

• thirdly, because mass immigration results in injustice to the host population;

• and fourthly, because mass immigration serves the agenda of vested interests and, therefore, promotes evil.

Moreover, the Pharisees who style themselves apostles of "Christian love" are at a loss when asked to explain why they hate their indigenous European neighbours so much that they want to see them replaced with non-Europeans.

Love and compassion which result in injustice are instruments of evil. It would be grotesque to imagine, even for a moment, that God could have intended the faithful to work evil.

It would be a gross injustice for a ruler, whose duty it is to protect his subjects, to give the country away to strangers and evict his subjects from the land as it would be for a father to give his house away to strangers and leave his own children homeless (1 Tim. 5:8).

Nor is there any evidence that Christ ever prescribed such a course of action for his followers. On the contrary, Christ himself did not tolerate injustice or 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). God, who is the embodiment of righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30), cannot be indifferent to injustice. And nor can those who believe in Him. As observed by the Church Fathers, injustice lays upon Christians the duty to fight in the cause of justice (St Aug., p. 862).

As Christ sacrificed himself on the cross for the sake of mankind, Christians must sacrifice themselves on the battlefield for the sake of God and their brethren (John 3:16). Martyrdom in the cause of Right is central to Christian tradition and the path to eternal life (John 12:25).

The take-over of Christian lands by Muslims in the Middle Ages was seen as an act of injustice and a threat to Christianity by the Church leaders of the time, leading to the Crusades in the Middle East and to the Reconquista in Spain. It is certainly un-Christian to deny the Christian faith and surrender to Socialism or Islam.

Miscegenation, particularly when leading to corruption of the true faith (which is what it tends to do in todays confused multicultural society), is equally frowned upon in the Bible and those who actively oppose it are commended (Nu. 25: 6-8).

Far from being a Christian belief, the notion that mass immigration, miscegenation and the fusion of the races are part of some "divine plan" emanates from anti-Christian quarters. For example, an article in the Masonic magazine The New Age states:

"Gods 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).

Such statements are understandable: Free Masonry is a left-wing, anti-Christian movement which the Church itself has always strongly condemned (Gruber, 1910, pp. 774, 786-7). Moreover, they are contradicted by the Bible which states that nations were made by God and that on Judgement Day they will be gathered before Christ who will divide them into righteous and unrighteous ones and sit in judgement over them (Acts 17:26; Matt. 25:31). Thus, there can be no divine plan to fuse all nations into one.

The Church has not always put immigrants above natives. For example, in the early 1900s, it campaigned for the primacy of African natives interests vis-a-vis those of European immigrants.

How the Christian Church, the heir of Greece and Rome and, for centuries, the backbone of Western civilization, has come to abandon God, His Law and His faithful and embrace anti-Christian teachings is explained by the subversive activities of left-wing infiltrators and saboteurs, as well as by the influence of vested financial interests.

How far the Church has come to identify its objectives with those of the latter is evident from the shares it holds in oil and mining companies controlled by the Anglo-American Establishment, such as Shell, BP, Exxon, Chevron and Anglo American, as well as by the admission of the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, that

"We have all gone to this temple called money. We have all worshipped at it ... we have all been enslaved" (Gledhill, 2008).

To be enslaved by money means to do the bidding of those who control money. In a speech at the International Eucharistic Congress in Dublin, Peter Sutherland of the appropriately named Goldman Sachs bank, while admitting that "immigration can be a disruptive force", quoted left-wing Pope John Paul II on a spurious "new model of the unity of the human race" and urged Church leaders to embrace mass immigration as a Christian duty (Sutherland 2012).

But there is no Christian duty to submit to a corrupt and oppressive establishment. On the contrary, it is a Christian duty to stand up to corruption and oppression.

The revolutionary message of Christianity may often be overlooked in a text written under conditions of religious and political persecution. Yet it is undeniable and crystal-clear: there can be no peace without justice. Christ himself declared that he came not to bring peace on earth but a sword (the sword of Righteousness) and to reestablish the Law of God:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Matt. 10:34).

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matt. 5:17).

As the Gospel says, "He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree" (Luke 1:25).

This makes Christianity a fundamentally revolutionary religion in the original sense of the word whose object is to overthrow the corrupt establishment and restore the rule of Righteousness. Indeed, salvation, that is, liberation from evil, from the clutches of the forces of Unrighteousness, is the central message of Christianity. (See the definition of revolution in Chapter 1, "Socialism," under the subheading "Marx's False Revolution".)

But true salvation cannot be brought about at a personal level, only, it must be brought about at national and world level, also. As the Gospel again says, "He spake by the mouth of his holy prophets ... that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us" (Luke 1:70-1; 22:36).

The objective and critical examination of its connections with the international money power as well as its actions and teachings, particularly from the second half of the 20th century, shows that they are contrary to authentic Christian tradition and that, far from being in a position to save us, the Church itself is beyond redemption.

Given that Church leaders are prepared to sacrifice indigenous European Christians on the altar of money interests or Mammon, the right-believing faithful are left with little choice but to shake off their passivity and subservience to a false church and seize the initiative, become the standard-bearers of the God of Righteousness and take up the struggle in His cause.

Like Christ, they must chase the wrongdoers from the temple and the demons from their midst and build a New Church and a true Kingdom of God on earth.

ANTI-WHITE RACISM AS ESTABLISHMENT POLICY

Further investigation - which media outfits like the Daily Mail could have carried out, had they been even remotely concerned with the interests of the general public - reveals that while the left-wing establishment claims to promote equality among races, it has taken full advantage of existing racial differences.

Already in the 1960s, under the influence of both Marxism and Americas left-wing-inspired Black Consciousness movement, the following emerged as the central ideas in the ideology of the Left:

1. Racial polarization was to be considered as the best stimulus to "progressive change" in ethnic relations.

2. All non-white people (West Indians, Pakistanis, Indians, African blacks, African Asians, and Chinese) were to be considered as a single group, called "black" (and standing in opposition to white people). A similar concept, "black and minority ethnic" (BME), has been used for the same purpose of creating a united opposition to the white indigenous population.

3. Ethnic relations in British cities were to be seen in terms of the position of black people throughout the world and of the British colonial legacy (Banton, pp. 106-7).

This is a clear example and incontrovertible proof of the Socialist tactic of polarizing society into antagonistic groups and then using one group, deemed "exploited", "oppressed" and "progressive", against another group, deemed "exploiting", "oppressive" and "backward" or "reactionary".

Socialism has always divided society into "exploited proletarians" (working class) and "exploiting bourgeoisie" (middle class). Over time, the Socialist concept of "exploited proletariat" was extended to the peoples of the Third World (Bauer, 1981, p. 74). The earlier "working class vs. middle class" ideology was replaced with "Third World vs. First World" or "black vs. white".

While earlier, Socialism had divided society into proletariat and bourgeoisie, the post-war Socialist scheme divided it into "blacks" and "whites" as an instrument of social engineering for Socialist ends.

Thus, the new Socialist scheme came to replace the native working class (which Socialism had originally claimed to represent) with non-white immigrants. As the Socialist elites sided with the latter, whites became the new "middle class", the new "bourgeois enemy" or scapegoat class to be eliminated in the world Socialist revolution.

It may be noted that more recently this phobia of white people has reached pathological levels, with left-wing "equality experts" demanding that fairies in childrens books be depicted in dark colours (as opposed to traditional bright colours) and that children be given paper other than white on which to draw, allegedly to "prevent racism" ("Give witches pink hats to fight racism, says equality expert", Sunday Telegraph, 25 Sept. 2011).

Already in the 1940s, the Labour Party leadership believed that British people had more in common with the people of the Dominions than with those of Europe (Callaghan, p. 214). Gradually, Labour leaders came to identify themselves more and more with the worlds non-white populations with which they allied themselves against the whites, a trend articulated earlier by leading Fabians like Frank Horrabin of the Colonial Bureau who declared that "the black inhabitants of Earth have a long and fearful score to pay off against their white brethren" (Horrabin, 1932).

Similarly, leading Milner Group members like Lionel Curtis and David Astor supported anti-white movements in various parts of the former Empire.

The study of race relations in Britain was pioneered by the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) which had its origins in Chatham Houses Race Relations Unit established in 1952. In 1962, IRR set up the Commonwealth Immigrants Advisory Council (CIAC) as an advisory body to the Home Secretary on Commonwealth immigrants.

Meanwhile, in 1964, leading Labour activists David Pitt of the Greater London Council and Hamza Alavi formed the immigrant organization Campaign Against Racial Discrimination (CARD).

In 1965, the IRR in collaboration with CARD, prominent Fabian Richard M. Titmuss (Prof. of Social Administration, London University) and others, was involved in the creation of the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants, which ostensibly aimed to promote good will and facilitate the integration of Commonwealth immigrants.

Also in the 1960s, Labour-controlled local authorities including the Greater London Council (GLC) were instrumental in facilitating the housing of non-white immigrants through loans, enabling those groups to benefit from such schemes out of proportion to their numbers (Patterson, pp. 212-3).

In the 1970s, local Labour councils in many London boroughs (Lambeth, Haringey, Camden, etc.) waged aggressive "race equality initiatives" including:

• systematic employment of more immigrants;

• compulsory "anti-racist" staff indoctrination;

• generous grant aid to immigrant initiatives;

• and inclusion of immigrant groups in the government machinery (Joppke, pp. 240-1).

In particular, the practice of preferential employment of non-white persons, deceptively called "equal opportunity policy", became widespread in Labour-controlled local councils (Joppke, p. 231).

In the 1980s, Ken Livingstone ("Red Ken") vowed to "use the council machinery as part of a political campaign in defence of socialist policies" (Joppke, p. 241). Under Livingstones leadership the Greater London Council (GLC) in collaboration with the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) launched an "anti-racism" campaign which identified white people as a "problem" (Callaghan, p. 242).

John Carr, Kens colleague on the GLC until 1986, promoted the imposition of racial quotas, requesting those receiving public contracts to use a certain ratio of ethnic workers (Lewis, p. 140). Local councils openly announced that waiting-lists for borough-owned homes were to be restricted to black (non-white) applicants (Lewis, p. 6).

Between 2000 and 2008, under Livingstone as Mayor of London, the left-wing race relations industry was able to continue its policies of promoting the growth of the immigrant population ("Ken: London needs more black teachers, police and cab drivers", Evening Standard, 15 Apr. 2008). It may be noted that Livingstones race relations adviser was left-wing black activist Lee Jasper who infamously claimed that blacks cannot be racist (BBC London Radio, 29 Apr. 2012).

Projects started by the Left have a distinct tendency to turn into something else over time. Community and race relations organizations have mutated from "welfare organization" to "representatives of the minorities" (Joppke, p. 239). The activists themselves are often immigrants or of immigrant descent.

For example, David Pitt and Hamza Alavi of CARD were from Grenada and Pakistan, respectively; the Sri Lankan Ambalavaner Sivanandan is director emeritus of IRR, etc.

Likewise, leading Labourites like Jack Straw, Peter Mandelson, Ed Miliband and Sadiq Khan are of immigrant extraction and so are leading Conservatives like Michael Howard, Andrew Feldman, Sayeeda Warsi, Boris Johnson and, to a lesser degree, David Cameron.

It follows that the institutional promotion of the immigrant minority tends to lead to an immigrant-centred society in which the race relations industry becomes the new political system and the immigrant population - led by race relations activists and agitators - becomes the new ruling class.

Promoting the immigrant minority also means restricting the rights of the indigenous majority, so that "freedom" and "justice" for immigrants become unfreedom and injustice for the natives.

Indeed, while promoting immigrants and immigration, Labour introduced unprecedented discriminatory legislation designed to restrict the rights of the indigenous population. In collaboration with immigrant-dominated CARD and allied organizations, Home Secretary Frank Soskice, the son of Russian immigrant and leftwing revolutionary David Soskice, introduced the 1965 Race Relations Act - the first in British history - which made it illegal for landlords to select a tenant or buyer for a property on racial grounds. In effect, the Act made it difficult if not impossible for indigenous communities to defend themselves against the state-enforced encroachment of immigration.

The Act also created the Race Relations Board (RRB) which was set up in the following year by the incoming Home Secretary and former Fabian Society chairman, Roy Jenkins.

In addition, it was insisted that community relations councils be controlled by the immigrant minorities and speak for them (Banton, p. 108). No councils controlled by the indigenous majority were ever proposed, encouraged or even allowed.

On the contrary, organizations opposed to immigration like the Racial Preservation Society had to be formed by private citizens and were forced to fight endless battles against malicious accusations of "racism" from influential, well-funded and aggressive "anti-racist" and "anti-Fascist" groups. Another notorious "anti-Fascist" tactic was to prevent immigration critics from using good speaking sites (Patterson, p. 485).

In 1967, Home Secretary Roy Jenkins drafted a Race Relations Bill leading to the second Race Relations Act - introduced by James Callaghan in the following year - which established the Community Relations Commission (CRC).

In 1976, Roy Jenkins, again as Labour Home Secretary and, from 1973 Trilateral Commission member, introduced the third Race Relations Act which merged the RRB and the CRC to form the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) with new enforcement powers.

The inquisitorial Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) along with the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) - also created by Roy Jenkins in 1975 - and a wide range of immigrant-oriented inner-city and other programmes became the key instrument through which Labour further enforced its immigrationist policies.

The CRE was also involved in setting up the Brussels-based Standing Conference on Racial Equality in Europe (SCORE), no doubt with the aim of enforcing "race equality" not only in the UK but all over Europe.

Indeed, as part of its Global Approach to Migration and Mobility programme (GAMM), the EU has stressed that although its immigration policy is meant to be of "mutual benefit" to both the EU and its nonEuropean partners, it "should be migrant-centred" (European Commissions Communication, COM(2011) 743, "The Global Approach to Migration and Mobility", 18 Nov. 2011, p. 6).

It is evident from Labour programmatic papers like A Policy for Equality: Race (ILEA, 1983) that the Labour policy of "race equality" aimed to change the "power relations between white and black people" in favour of the non-white immigrant population.

It is also evident from Labour papers like John Carrs "New Roads To Equality: Contract Compliance For The UK?" advocating the imposition of racial quotas, that Labours policy aimed to change the numerical white-black relation in favour of the non-white immigrant population.

It follows that Labours "racial equality" policies are not about "equal treatment" of different races, but about making non-white immigrant groups numerically equal and eventually superior to the white indigenous population.

As a result of this policy, in just a few decades the UK's immigrant population grew by an order of magnitude, from thousands in 1951 to millions by 1991 (Halsey, p. 138).

In 2006, Britains Labour Government passed an Equality Act which established the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). In 2008, the EHRC commissioned a study on interethnic relations by the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) at Essex University. The ISERs findings were published in May 2009 as a report entitled "Ethnicity and Family: Relationships Within and Between Ethnic Groups".

Commenting on the report, a spokesperson for the Equality Commission stated:

"One in five of our children are from an ethnic minority background and young people are six times more likely to be mixed race compared to adults ... This is hugely positive and we can afford a moment to celebrate" ("The rise of mixed race Britain", 19 Jan. 2009, www.iser.essex.ac.uk).

Presumably, the Equality Commission will celebrate even more when not one but five in five of British children are from an ethnic minority background.

The Commission will not have to wait long for its final celebration. Figures provided by the Office for National Statistics show that by 2009 Londons indigenous (White British) population had been reduced to 59 per cent. At ward level, this was as low as 10 per cent (Joppke, p. 239). This means that in some areas the indigenous population has become a small minority. Similar developments can be seen elsewhere - Birmingham, Bradford, Leicester, etc.

Needless to say, in addition to the genetic loss, this also amounts to an unacceptable loss of territory to Britains indigenous communities. Without territory, the indigenous people are unable to survive and reproduce. Although most whites are not consciously aware of the extent of their predicament, a report by the Office of Communities and Local Governments in 2008 showed that the vast majority of white Britons feel that they have no influence on local and national decisions and that their aspirations are disregarded by the political system (Caldwell, p.87).

THE ROCHDALE CASE AND ANTI-WHITE RACISM

Evidence shows that when white Britons make complaints of harassment and hatred against them, they are attacked by nonwhite mobs while the police forces systematically refuse to prosecute the culprits or even investigate the reported crime ("Police covered up violent campaign to turn London area Islamic", Daily Telegraph, 12 Jun. 2011).

An emblematic example of this is the infamous Rochdale case in which, for many years, criminals from Britains Pakistani community were reportedly allowed by the police forces to rape under-age white girls and force them into prostitution with impunity ("Police ignored Asian sex ring for a decade", Daily Telegraph, 10 May 2012).

To their credit, both the judge who heard the case and the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) pointed out that race had played a part in the crime. In contrast, police chiefs have arrogantly and irresponsibly insisted that "it isnt about a race issue" ("Claiming Rochdale grooming not about race is fatuous? - Trevor Phillips", Daily Telegraph, 14 May 2012).

It may be pointed out in response that even Baroness Warsi, Conservative Party co-chairman and a member of the Pakistani community, conceded in an interview with the Evening Standard that a section of Pakistani men living in Britain see white women as "fair game", the obvious implication being that in her view, race was a factor ("Minister in shock claim on sex abuse", Evening Standard, 18 May 2012).

The same applies to Mohammed Shafiq, head of the Ramadhan Foundation and a Pakistani, who admitted that gangs of Pakistani men sexually abusing white girls were a problem ("An obsession with racism that left vulnerable girls at the mercy of sex predators", Daily Mail, 10 May 2012).

In light of the above, what is the explanation for this disturbing and shameful behaviour on the part of the police and other authorities - courts, social services, etc.? It has been suggested by some that the authorities were "paralyzed" by fear of being seen as critical of Muslims or racist (Melanie Phillips, "The Rochedale sex ring shows the horrific consequences of Britains Islamophobia witch-hunt", Daily Mail, 9 May 2012; Shafiq, above). This obviously raises wider issues.

While the authorities do appear to be lenient towards Muslims who commit crimes against whites, this leniency extends to immigrants in general and non-white immigrants in particular. There is a tendency for the authorities to refuse to see crimes committed by non-whites against whites as race related (Panton, 2006).

Lee Jasper, former race relations adviser to the Mayor of London, has claimed that blacks cannot be racist, on the spurious theory that only those who are in a position of power can be racist (BBC London Radio, 29 Apr. 2012). But a person who is in a position to inflict harm on others, for example, by sexually abusing them, is indisputably in a position of power in relation to his victims.

In light of deliberate inaction on the part of the authorities, it is perhaps unsurprising that the protest group English Defence League (EDL) joined forces with members of the Sikh community which has reportedly had similar experiences with Muslim gangs ("The far-Right leader in a Sikh headscarf and a very disturbing anti-Muslim alliance: EDL joins protesters angry at grooming of girls," Daily Mail, 1 Jul. 2012).

While the anti-indigenous mass media predictably portray legitimate and spontaneous protests as "disturbing", such protests may be a sign that Britains white community is finally trying to take hold of its own life and defend its legitimate self-interests. This seems to be confirmed by other small, yet significant, steps in this direction taken, for example, by a taxi firm in Rochdale which now offers white drivers to customers (Perry, 2014).

However, male immigrants - and not just Muslims - may target indigenous women even when no crime is involved. For example, in 2008, half of Britains black Caribbean men - amounting to one per cent of the total population or over 600,000 - were in a relationship with white women (Platt, 2009).

Given the numbers involved, this cannot be accidental - it must be the result of deliberate policy on the part of the men involved. This conclusion is confirmed by the prominent black Caribbean psychiatrist and activist Frantz Fanon who found that the "dominant concern" among black Caribbean men arriving in Europe in the 1950s was "to go to bed with a white woman".

Fanon observes that a character in a work by the black writer Rene Maran, which he believes to be autobiographical, states that the majority of blacks "tend to marry in Europe not so much out of love as for the satisfaction of being the master of a European woman" (Fanon, pp. 69, 72), which reveals a racist desire to dominate and suppress white people.

Fanons findings clearly show that the white community cannot be indifferent to this wider problem, particularly in light of the fact that

(a) there are other immigrant groups with a high percentage of white partners, such as the Chinese (Platt, 2009) and, increasingly, Muslims from Africa, the Middle East and Asia, often with links to enemy interests (Communist Party of China, Islamist groups, etc.) and that

(b) as will become apparent from the data given below, this trend is encouraged by the media and entertainment industries and other sections of the establishment.

It follows that exclusively focusing on criminal elements from the Pakistani community ignores (or covers up) a wider problem involving immigrant groups. It also gives the wrong signals, suggesting that white women are of no value to the majority community and can be used by male immigrants for their own purposes as long as no criminal activity is involved. If that is the message, then it cannot be surprising that immigrants see indigenous women as "fair game".

In turn, this is part of the growing, elite-manufactured culture in which the sole purpose of the white race is to promote other races at its own expense - similar to laboratory animals living and dying for the benefit of cosmetic and pharmaceutical corporations. This self-sacrificial (or suicidal) attitude is best exemplified by the charity industry which is catering almost exclusively for the perceived needs of the Third World (see below).

It must also be noted that the police evidently are not paralyzed when it comes to arresting whites for alleged "racially aggravated" harassment or public order offences when the latter are merely venting their legitimate frustration at state-enforced mass immigration and its horrific consequences - such as loss of ethnic and cultural identity and territorial dispossession.

In scenes disturbingly reminiscent of Stalinist Russia and Maoist China, law-abiding white Britons who tell immigrants to "go home" or otherwise verbally express their Opposition to mass immigration are hauled before the courts by the police, ritually humiliated in front of the international media and locked up with professional criminals, rapists, murderers and pedophilias ("Tube racist whose champagne-fuelled tirade was viewed by thousands on YouTube is sentenced to five months in prison", Daily Mail, 30 May 2012).

The fact that Britons fighting for democracy in places like Iraq and Afghanistan are celebrated as "heroes" whereas those standing up for democracy at home are treated like criminals clearly shows that the Establishment is not serious about upholding democracy on the home front.

In fact, the very existence and almost indiscriminate use of phrases like "racially aggravated" and similar terminology shows that the legal system itself is race-centred and promotes an elite-engineered racial agenda. It follows that it is not a case of "paralysis" but an institutional trend among the state authorities to actively side with non-white immigrant elements against the white indigenous population. This, of course, is part and parcel of the system.

Like the parliament and other institutions of British "liberal democracy", the police forces are an instrument for preserving the rule of the Establishment, that is, of the clique responsible for mass immigration and the breakdown of indigenous society. Indeed, the objective analysis of police behaviour indicates that the main function and concern of police officers is not to protect the indigenous majority population but to keep the Establishment (and themselves) in power and the public under control.

The same applies to the Crown Prosecution Service which initially refused to take action against the Rochdale gang and the immigration authorities who allowed the gang to enter and settle in Britain. Incidentally, the Crown Prosecution Service parroted the police line that the Rochdale Case had nothing to do with race.

When the state itself has become anti-white, the organs of the state like the legislature, judiciary and supporting authorities like the police forces, etc. cannot be anything else than instruments of oppression against the indigenous white population.

The media, of course, play an important role in all this. Just days after reporting on the Rochdale Case, The Sun brought out a semi-pornographic piece that was as tasteless as it was disrespectful to the Rochdale victims, sporting the front-page banner "Tongue Direction: Zayn Snogs Little Mix Perrie" and a picture of Pakistani One Direction singer Zayn Malik "snogging" English pop star Perrie Edwards of the pro-diversity girl band Little Mix (The Sun, 23 May 2012).

Melanie Phillips in her Daily Mail article (see above) correctly points out that "when it comes to matters to do with minorities or Islam, the British mind simply switches off". Indeed, there is compelling evidence that a significant percentage of the British population is in denial about problems associated with immigration. But this denial is a symptom of the underlying collective trauma suffered by the indigenous population as a result of the drastic social and cultural changes imposed on it by the treacherous ruling order.

Another symptom of this trauma is the white indigenous populations loss of the ability or willpower to protect its most valuable asset: its women and children. Having had its sense of ethnic and cultural identity (and sense of honour) amputated by the ruling elites, the indigenous population is now in the process of losing its survival instinct and will to live, poisoned by the elite-imposed belief in its own "unworthiness of life".

Together with other obvious symptoms such as declining fertility and rising incidence of alcoholism, mental illness and suicide, this state of affairs proves that Western liberal democracy is a self-destructive system that can only result in the annihilation of Western civilization, culture and society.

Thus, the lesson that must be drawn from the objective and critical analysis of establishment behaviour is that

• behind every exposed lie there is a bigger lie being covered up;

• behind every indicted crime there is a worse crime being condoned, committed, or planned;

• and behind even the greatest horror there is a still greater horror waiting to unfold.

(The Rochdale Case was subsequently overshadowed by the Rotherham and other cases in which even larger numbers of young white females, some as young as eleven, were systematically subjected to sexual exploitation, abuse, violence and humiliation by organized groups of Pakistani and African males over many years).

In March 2007, the EU Presidency declared that "new forms of racism have taken shape in the wake of globalization [and] the formation of multi-ethnic societies" (EU Commission Press Release P/07/22, 21 Mar. 2007 www.europa.eu). This is a clear admission that elite-engineered globalism and multi-ethnicism have resulted in new forms of racism. But while this new racism is officially seen as affecting non-white minorities, what is being covered up are the ways in which it is affecting the white majority.

Whatever may have been the original intention, mass immigration has become a new form of colonialism while race relations policies have degenerated into overt Anglophobia (or Europhobia on the Continent and elsewhere) as well as inverted, anti-white discrimination and racism.

In particular, the truth that the ruling order does not want the public to know is that mass immigration and its consequences are inextricably connected with the anti-colonial and racial policies of the International Left and its "Liberal Capitalist" paymasters. Anti-colonialism was championed from the early 1900s by the Fabian Socialist-inspired Labour Party and allied elements of the Liberal Milner Group.

• Mass immigration was made possible by legislation introduced by the Fabian Socialist Clement Attlee in the late 1940s.

• The "study of race relations" in Britain was pioneered in the early 1950s by the Institute of Race Relations, a branch of Fabian-associated Chatham House chaired by the secretary of the Eugenics Society, Alexander Carr-Saunders.

• Subsequent race relations policies (along with other far-reaching radical social reforms) were shaped by former Fabian Society chairman and Trilateral Commission member Roy Jenkins.

As the architects of immigrationist developments from Clement Attlee and Roy Jenkins to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown all have been followers of Fabian Socialism (and members of the Fabian Society), which aims to "reconstruct" society on Fabian Socialist lines, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the promotion of the immigrant population at the expense of the indigenous community has been part of the Fabian Socialist plan.

It may also be recalled that the Trilateral Commission of which Roy Jenkins was a member was founded by long-time Fabian Socialism supporter David Rockefeller. This clearly links the Fabian Socialist plan with the international money power which was responsible for the creation of the UN and EU.

The same treacherous Milner-Fabian clique which instigated, organized and financed anti-colonial movements in Africa and South Asia in the 1900s, is now instigating, organizing and financing the colonization of Europe by Africans and South Asians. While earlier, the slogan was "Independence" and "Quit India", now it is "Interdependence", "Open Britain/Europe", "Diversity" and "Inclusiveness". All because it suits the money powers self-serving designs.

The money powers outfits, the UN and the EU, are the organizations that are currently spearheading the global effort to suppress Europes indigenous culture, civilization and people, while promoting everyone elses. A leading figure in this campaign is Peter Sutherland, chairman of Goldman Sachs International, LSE and the Trilateral Commission (Europe) and head of the United Nations Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD).

In June 2012, Sutherland openly called for the EU to create multicultural nations and to "undermine national homogeneity and sense of difference from others" (Lords Select Committee, pp. 21, 25).

RACE RELATIONS AND THE MEDIA: IS FOOTBALL BEING "ROCKED BY RACISM"?

Another reliable indicator of the money powers true intentions is the behaviour of the media, entertainment and advertising industries which the money power owns and controls.

In May 2012 The Sun published an "exclusive" story under the front-page headline "Messi in Race Row", in which the black Dutch footballer Royston Drenthe claimed that the Argentine player Lionel Messi had insulted him by calling him a "negro" ("Messi always says negro, negro and I cant stand it", The Sun, 10 May 2012). In fact, it emerges from the story that Messis exact words were "Hola negro" which in Spanish means "Hello black man".

Whatever may have been Messis motives in addressing Drenthe in this manner, given the astronomical sums received by players like Drenthe, he was hardly your typical "poor victim". Moreover, Drenthe must have had his reasons for going to the press two years after the incident. On its part, the tabloid must have had its own motives in publicizing a "racism storm" it had itself conjured up out of thin air. There is not a small probability that said motives had to do with attempts to increase sales.

But there is more to it. Far from football being "rocked by racism", there are a growing number of black players in national football teams. For example, the England squad at the 2010 FIFA World Cup had eight black players out of twenty-three, that is, 34 per cent - a significant rise compared to twenty or thirty years ago and well above the percentage of blacks in the countrys total population.

Similarly, in the 2012 European Championship, the Dutch squad had at least seven non-white players, while the England team in the opening game against France had as many as six black players on the pitch (out of eleven), amounting to over 54 per cent.

It follows that the tabloids imaginary "racism storms" are nothing but a typical media decoy to deflect attention from the inconvenient truth that non-whites are often overrepresented in football. This, of course, is quite deliberate: it has to do with the creation in 1999 of Football Against Racism in Europe (FARE), an EU-sponsored international organization aiming to "combat racism and xenophobia through football".

Considering that the vice-president of the Union of European Football Association (UEFA), the body which runs European football, is the Turk Senes Erzik, a former UN operative and banker with links to Adidas and other financial interests and that half of Britains Premier League teams are foreign-owned, it is evident that in addition to having become big business instead of sport, organized football is another instrument for the advancement of the international money powers anti-indigenous agenda.

In effect, official football is a device for promoting multiracialism, suppressing the indigenous populations ethnic identity and denying it the right to protest and resist, while simultaneously deflecting public attention from what is happening. In short, its true function is that of both instrument and smokescreen for anti-white racism, while at the same time lining the pockets of the money power and its front men and collaborators.

RACE RELATIONS AND THE GLOBAL CHARITY DECEPTION

Charity organizations are a multi-billion pounds industry which wields an enormous amount of influence and power, particularly in respect of race relations. A key representative of this industry is Oxfam.

Oxfam is an Oxford-based international confederation of 15 organizations operating in over 90 countries worldwide. The Charity was co-founded in 1942 by Gilbert Murray, a friend of Fabian luminaries like G. B. Shaw and H. G. Wells and a collaborator of General Jan Smuts, a follower of the Milner Group. Murray was also a proponent of "Rational World-order" and president of the Milner-Fabian League of Nations Society (LNS).

Oxfam, therefore, is a Milner-Fabian (i.e. Money Power) operation.

Charities like Oxfam admit that "one in five people in Britain lives in poverty which is 13 million people" and claim that they are "working to support them". However, closer scrutiny of their websites and high-street shops across the country reveals an overwhelming concern with African, South Asian, Latin American and other non-British and non-European issues.

Oxfams website, www.oxfam.org.uk, reports:

• an "amazing reduction in deaths" related to childbirth in Mozambique;

• the "rising number of people receiving life-saving treatment for HIV and AIDS;

• introduction of free health care" in Zambia;

• the ability of millions of children in Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya and Malawi to go to school;

• the construction of roads in Ethiopia "making it easier for children to get to school, people to reach hospitals, and farmers to transport and sell their crops".

All this with money raised in the UK.

Charitable donations and foreign aid may make donors feel better about themselves, but is it in the interest of British or European people to aid Africa? As shown by economists like Bauer, foreign aid increases the power of recipient regimes in relation to the general population, while making them dependent on foreign interests (Bauer, 1976, pp. 106-7; Bauer, 2000, p. 46).

But there is another reason behind charity and foreign aid projects. Reports published by the Population Division of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs show that the worlds main high-fertility regions are Africa, Asia and Latin America, that is, precisely those regions which charities like Oxfam are over-concerned to supply with aid. Africa, in particular, has the highest fertility and its population is estimated to increase by 150 per cent by 2100. In contrast, Europe is the only region with a declining population ("UN concerned by world population trends", BBC News, 3 Feb. 2011; "World population by country: UN guesses the shape of the world by 2100", Guardian DataBlog, 26 Oct. 2011).

Clearly, there must be a connection between the activities of charities like Oxfam and foreign aid from Western governments, on one hand, and the population explosion in Africa, Asia, Latin America and other non-European recipients of such aid, on the other hand. Equally clear is that the rising population in these regions is the material cause of the unprecedented rise in immigration levels, including "refugees" and "asylum seekers". At the same time, growing numbers of Europeans opt out of having children due to the rising cost of raising them.

In other words, Europeans give away money they can ill afford in the current crisis and receive in return immigrants they scarcely need or want.

Tellingly, Europes economists and policymakers representing the international money power consider this arrangement a good thing on the ground that it "produces a swelling workforce capable of producing more goods and continues economic growth" ("Global population study launched by Royal Society", BBC News, 12 Jul. 2010).

In the same vein, Peter Sutherland, a leading international banker and head of the UN Forum on Migration and Development (UNFMD), has praised Africas (foreign aid-induced) "youth bulge" resulting in millions of Africans heading in the direction of Europe in search of work as a "good thing" (Sutherland, 2012).

Meanwhile, with the exception of white volunteers and campaigners, pictures on the Oxfam website show almost exclusively non-white persons. Among pictures of recipients of philanthropic giving on its "Philanthropy" page (last accessed on 1 Sept. 2015) we were unable to find a single white face. This does not necessarily mean that Oxfam provides no aid to whites. What it does show, however, is its predominant preoccupation with aiding non-whites.

Oxfams racial preferences are studiously emulated by members of the Establishment who are constantly pictured by the media holding African children in their arms or otherwise busying themselves on that continent or with African issues, as if this were their only purpose in life.

As with foreign aid initiatives, there is an ulterior motive behind this bizarre behaviour: Africa is where the money power extracts gold, diamonds, oil and other resources which enable it to rule the world.

Ritualistic, obsessive and globally broadcast displays of "solidarity" with Africas poor serve to cover up the appalling plunder, exploitation and destruction visited on African countries, while at the same time psychologically preparing Europes unwitting population for the planned political and economic union with Africa which will enable the money power to continue to extract resources for its own profit without fear of political upheaval (see Ch. 10, Islamization).

In turn, this behaviour is aped by the white masses who fail to see that it is all a scam devised by the money power to rob not only Africans but, above all, Europeans, of their money, identity and freedom.

FAIR TRADE, STARBUCKS AND THE TRAVEL INDUSTRY

Another weapon in the money powers covert race war is the "Fair Trade" project. Ostensibly aiming to ensure that Third World farmers receive a fair price for their produce, Fair Trade serves to cover up exploitation as well as deflecting attention from the farmers growing dependence on multinational corporations.

Instead of growing food crops to feed themselves and the local communities (as they have done for centuries), they are encouraged to grow alien "cash crops" such as coffee, cocoa and tea, which they are compelled to sell at low prices to foreign companies in order to buy (often imported) food at exorbitant prices - all for the profit of said companies and their associates.

In addition, like all projects connected with the Third World, Fair Trade is used to promote an elite-engineered miulticulturalist and multiracialist agenda, particularly in collaboration with the food service or catering industry. A key player in this scheme has been the coffee-shop chain Starbucks.

Apart from charging exorbitant prices for its brewed coffee - a non-European beverage of dubious flavour and scant nutritional value made from the charred seeds of the coffee tree which may have harmful health effects - Starbucks is also involved in the music industry, producing a subversive form of musical fusion which it plays in its hundreds of stores around the world "as part of Starbucks customers daily coffee routines".

The outfit responsible for selecting Starbucks in-store music programme is HearMusic, an offshoot of Starbucks Entertainment which promotes "artists with inspired (read left-wing) vision".

While also promoting a scattering of American country and Irish folk, HearMusics main concern is black or black-influenced music - African, Afro-American, Afro-Latin American, Afro-European and Afro-anything - which it promotes in a wide range of related genres from contemporary jazz to R&B, soul, reggae and Latin jazz. Notable among groups promoted is Zap Mama, whose musical efforts have been described by the New York Times as "a utopian multicultural dream" ("Five Women and a Mix of Traditions", NYT, 22 May 1993).

The groups leader, the mixed-race singer Marie Daulne, believes that her mission is to be a bridge between the European and the African and "bringing the sounds of Africa to the Western world" ("Zap Happy", Metro Santa Cruz, 30 Jul. 2003 www.metroactive.com).

Given that Europes music world is already saturated with African and other alien sounds, Starbucks multicultural dream promises to turn into a nightmare for Europes indigenous culture (or whatever little is left of it): in an apt illustration of Orwells Fabian Socialist "Big-Brother" Society, the corporation is expanding its operations to include restaurants, bookstores and in-flight programmes across the globe, so that wherever one goes, one will have the pleasure of listening to the familiar sounds of the money powers universal tunes.

This leads us to another key industry contributing to the Orwellian promotion of non-white causes and total neglect, indeed suppression, of white interests in the name of "diversity". The foreign-travel industry owned or controlled by the money power inculcates a false sense that non-European countries, their populations and cultures are preferable to Europes own.

Again, this serves the interests of the international money power who owns the tourist resorts, airlines and global chains of hotels, restaurants, coffee-shops (like Starbucks), food manufacturing companies and, above all, banks catering for the elite-engineered, escapist "needs" of the travelling (or migrating) masses.

Needless to say, like Oxfam and Starbucks, all of the above, from supermarket to department store chains to banks, operate an "Africa project" designed to maximize that continents population explosion and bring about its fusion with Europe.

THE "OBAMA GENERATION" OR THE ANGLO-AMERICAN ESTABLISHMENT AND THE RISE OF THE MIXED-RACE MAN

The money powers promotion of immigration and non-white culture is accompanied by its equally systematic and pervasive promotion of black and mixed-race individuals as reflected in fashionable trends like the imposition of racial quotas, adoption of non-white children and mixed-race marriage in the media, entertainment and related industries, and exemplified by leading figures of mass culture like Madonna, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt ("Brangelina"), David Bowie and many others.

In a chilling parallel to Communist dictatorships where members of the artistic profession routinely promote the leaderships ideological line, a fast growing number of mass-culture representatives in the "liberal democratic" world allow themselves to be recruited as "goodwill ambassadors" and "special envoys" of the UN and used as mouthpieces of its social, political and racial agendas.

At the same time, there has been a relentless campaign among media organizations, including the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), to employ more black TV presenters and show hosts. This has been covered by Britains "patriotic" press with unreserved approval. The Daily Mail has chosen to style Holly Willoughby (a white female) and Reggie Yates (a black male), who are co-hosting BBC1s singing reality show The Voice, a "dream team" ("Why Reggies the Voice of the future", Daily Mail, 6 Apr., 2012).

As Britain at the time of writing is still a white-majority country, a combination like the Willoughby-Yates team cannot be construed as "representative" of the British population. The use of the phrase "dream team" therefore can only have been motivated by an intention to project mixed couples as the desired ideal.

The fact is that the behaviour of the media and the entertainment industry is not only a reliable indicator of a societys decadence; it is often emulated by the general public. As observed by media culture theorist Douglas Kellner, media culture shapes our view of the world and our deepest values (Kellner, p. 1). Following the media cue, the on-stage "dream team" becomes the off-stage couple in the street multiplied by thousands - exactly as intended by the financial and political puppeteers pulling the strings behind the entertainment and media industries which, as noted earlier, are the money powers instrument of mass propaganda, manipulation and control.

Meanwhile, the theme has been taken up by other broadcasters like ITV. Its dating show Take Me Out features three or four male contestants choosing a partner from a group of females. The participants, a large number of whom are tellingly selected from the entertainment industry itself, are often paired with "dates" from other racial groups (a tactic also deployed by BBC Ones Strictly Come Dancing and other shows).

Predictably enough, one such mixed-race couple was the first to get married - and was duly celebrated by the same media outfits as a great achievement ("I ding dang do! Paddy McGuinesss dating show Take Me Out scores the first engaged couple", Daily Mail, 10 Aug. 2011).

Objections from the public are routinely treated with derision or vilified as "racist". When black Jamaicans expressed displeasure at their fellow Jamaican Usain Bolts (the black sprinter) new girlfriend, the Slovakian fashion designer Lubica Slovak, the Daily Mail retaliated by dubbing it abusive and unsporting ("Usain Bolt, his fashion designer girlfriend and a very unsporting race storm", Daily Mail, 5 May 2012). While the tabloid stopped short of calling Usains Jamaican critics "Nazis", the message is clear: the elite-imposed miscegenation programme is to go ahead even against the wishes and interests of the black community.

A further illustration of the systematic promotion of the mixed couple as an iconic image is the choreographic adaptation of European fairytales for this purpose. For example, Snow White by Ballet Preljocaj (2008). Shown at Londons Sadlers Wells Theatre (whose chairman is The Economist director Sir David Bell) in May 2012, the performance featured Virginie Caussin as Snow White along black dancer Sergio Diaz as the Prince ("Fetish twist ona fairytale", Evening Standard, 11 May 2012).

The same treatment has been applied to the Royal Ballets Sleeping Beauty (Royal Opera House, London, 2006), performed by the black Brazilian dancer Carlos Acosta as the Prince and Tamara Rojo (a white Spaniard) as the Princess; the American Ballet Theatres Sleeping Beauty (Metropolitan Opera House, New York, 2002), again with Acosta as the Prince and Susan Jaffe (a white American) as the Princess ("Ballet Review; A 20th Century Gloss on 19th -Century Ideas", New York Times, 22 May 2002). There are numerous other examples.

As nothing in the original stories justifies the choice of a black person for the role in question, this suggests a sinister agenda to distort and deconstruct European culture for the political and financial gain of certain elite groups. It also tallies with the race-relation industrys demand that fairies in childrens books be depicted in dark colours; that British children who dislike foreign food be treated as "racists", etc. (see above).

While few would object to occasional and spontaneous cases of inter-racial mixing, it is a very different matter when this is the result of mass indoctrination, manipulation and conditioning by financial and political interests. The media, entertainment and advertising industries systematic construction of the mixed-race couple as an ideal obviously betrays a politically-motivated agenda.

According to the The Independent, mixed-race people are allegedly "stronger" ("A black and white issue: The future of society is mixed", Independent, 26 Nov. 2006), while according to the Evening Standard, they are "more attractive" ("Mixed race is the perfect face", Evening Standard, 16 Apr. 2010).

This, of course, despite the patent fact that distinct races have been sufficiently strong to thrive on their own for millennia and that mixed-race people have only become "more attractive" recently, namely as a result of the global mass media campaign projecting them that way. [*]

The logical implication of all this is that non-mixed people, particularly whites, are "weaker" and "less attractive" and, therefore, "inferior".

[*] My note.

1. The hypothesis of the superiority of mixed races is refuted by human history itself.

Many cultures have existed on Earth, but only one was able to embark on a path of sustained scientific and technological progress and give birth to civilization. This civilization is called European, since its formation and development are associated with the activities of representatives of the European race.

The main driver of scientific and technological progress was the Nordic element of the European race - the population of Protestant countries, as well as the adjacent regions of France and Italy.

It was the white race - the most intelligent, strong, and courageous - that conquered all the continents in the 19th century, brought the tribes inhabiting them under its influence, and instilled in them the achievements of its great Civilization.

It was the white race, driven by its innate desire for freedom, that created democracy and the republic, while other races continued to exist under despotism and tyranny.

It was the white race, recognized as the most beautiful, that became the aesthetic standard for painting and sculpture and an ideal for imitation by other races.

It is the white race, due to its natural superiority, that represents the primary threat to the monetary power. And this is one of the main reasons for the existential fear and hatred of the monetary power towards the white race.

One of the factors in the decline of European civilization in the 20th century was the rise among cultural figures of an alien racial element who promoted anti-aesthetics. In turn, the slowdown in scientific and technological progress that began in the 1960s coincided with the growth of mass immigration of non-white peoples into Europe.

2. Another fact that refutes the hypothesis of mixed-race superiority is the American economic miracle, which arose under laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Their repeal in the 1970s coincided with the end of the economic boom.

The hypothesis of the superiority of mixed races is also refuted by scientific research from the early 20th century - an era when human science had not yet been politicized by the ideologists of the Fabian society and Soviet communism.

Thus, in his book "Politische Anthropologie" (1903), Doctor of Medical Sciences Ludwig Woltmann, drawing on extensive anthropological data collected on five continents, demonstrated that the offspring of interracial marriages, compared to the original races, are characterized by:

• lower fertility;

• less stable psyche;

• increased susceptibility to illness;

• higher levels of social disorganization;

• weakened connections with the cultural types of the parents.

Moreover, the negative consequences of mixed marriages become more pronounced the greater the differences between the original races.

Woltman's conclusions were confirmed by reality: the rise in the number of mulattoes in the United States and Brazil coincided with a sharp rise in crime in these countries. The main element of this phenomenon was not members of the original races (white and black), but specifically mulattoes.

End of my note.

This tallies with new claims about descendants of African slaves having a "superior athletic gene" and with a study by Cardiff University claiming that mixed-race people are not only "more attractive" but also "more successful", a claim the authors of the study have sought to support using Darwins theory that cross-breeding leads to "genetically superior" offspring (BBC News, 14 Apr. 2010).

Not only do such claims blatantly contradict the establishment mantra "we are all equal" but, as pointed out by the Daily Mail, such claims are redolent of the racial-superiority theories of the 1930s ("Why the progeny of slaves will strike gold at the Olympics", Daily Mail, 3 Jul. 2012). Thus, there is a subtle, yet undeniable shift in mainstream race discourse from "racial equality" towards "racial superiority".

Such racist assumptions are finding wider amplification through media and entertainment policies at European level. For example, in 2009, the mixed-race singer Jade Ewen (who has a British-Italian father and a Jamaican mother) was elected to represent Britain at the Eurovision Song Contest. While Ewens vocal abilities are beyond dispute, it remains unclear why she was given preference over candidates who were more representative of Britains general population which, after all, is what the Contest should be about.

When Ewen finished in fifth place, her promoter blamed it on "racism" in the Contest ("Andrew Lloyd Webber makes Eurovision racism claim", BBC News, 3 Jul. 2012). While it cannot be proven that Ewens failure was due to "racism", expecting a contestant to win on grounds of race is itself racist.

Meanwhile, it may be pointed out that the Eurovision Song Contest has a tradition of favouring so-called "black and minority ethnic" (BME) groups: in 2012, out of the twenty-four contesting countries (excluding non-European ones like Azerbaijan and Turkey), five were represented by members of the following minorities: Congolese (Ukraine), Indonesian (France), Iranian (Norway), Jewish (Germany) and Moroccan (Sweden). This amounts to an astonishing over 20 per cent minority and over 16 per cent non-white representation, that is, well beyond European average.

It is clear from the contestants profile that this is not accidental:

• Norways Iranian representative had been promoted by MTV Norway, an offshoot of MTV US;

• Ukraines Congolese representative performed at Barack Obamas presidential Inauguration in 2009;

• Frances Indonesian representative was Goodwill Ambassador of the UN in 2009 and participated in a 2011 concert promoting racial diversity organized by SOS Racisme, an outfit described as a "puppet of Frances Socialist Party", etc. (www.eurovision.tv; www. wikipedia.org).

Significantly, the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) which controls the Eurovision Song Contest has several US associate members, including the Rockefeller-associated media corporation Time Warner. The latters involvement may help explain why the 2012 Contest was won by Swedens Moroccan representative Anggun with a psychedelic performance of the trance song "Euphoria": the song is part of an album released earlier in the year by Warner Music Sweden which is part of the Time Warner spin-off Warner Music Group (WMG).

From 1967 to 2004, Time Warner owned WMG whose subsidiaries are among Americas largest recording corporations specializing in African-American music. For example, Atlantic Records has been promoting jazz, R&B and soul, while Interscope Records has been promoting rap and violent hip-hop. When WMG was sold in 2004, the sale agreement included a provision allowing Time Warner to buy back 15 per cent of the new company (NYT, 25 Nov. 2003).

This would suggest that despite the sale, Time Warner retained some form of control in WMG, in which case the latter remains part of Time Warners global media and Entertainment empire for all practical purposes. In any case, WMG is officially owned by Access Industries whose founder is the Russian-American billionaire Len Blavatnik, who is a partner of prominent Anglo-American Establishment member Nat Rothschild in the aluminum giant Rusal. In addition, a number of WMG executives have been with the company since the early 1990s and its chairman from 2004 to 2012 was Lyor Cohen, former head of the hip-hop and rap outfit Island Def Jam (www.wmg.com).

Apart from the undeniable links to international financial interests and subversive music genres, one must wonder as to what might have been the message of Angguns bizarre performance. Was it intended to convey the euphoria experienced by the rising numbers of Moroccans who are now free to live in Europe thanks to EU legislation? Or was it, to paraphrase Feuer, symbolic of the holy exaltation felt by the high priests of the New World Order enacting the sacrificial deconstruction of Western civilization?

In any case, while Warner and its Eurovision puppets were preparing the requiem (or dance of death) for European culture, the American People magazine named the mixed-race singer Beyonce the "most beautiful woman in the world" (People, 7 May 2012).

Again, as it is unclear why the other candidates in the magazines top 10 list (seven white, one Latin American and one mixed-race) did not qualify for the title, it can only be surmised that a politically motivated racial agenda was at play. Indeed, People is published by Time Inc., a subsidiary of Time Warner, whose former chairman and executive officer Richard Parsons is a long-time protg of Nelson Rockefeller and trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, we find that the most militant promotion of the new "Mixed-Race Man" or what Britains Equality Commission has called "the Obama generation" emanates from left-wing America.

It is not mere accident that the "New York" ("NY") logo - the unofficial Seal of the New World Order - has become a compulsory fashion accessory throughout the Western world: Americas New York-led media and entertainment industries have systematically promoted interracial relations for decades.

One of the latest cinematographic examples of this genre is 2 Days in New York (2011) starring Julie Delpy and Chris Rock. We need not go far to discover who is behind such artistic "masterpieces": 2 Days in New York was released by Magnolia Pictures, the same film studio which financed the anti-American Iraq War film Redacted (2007). Its co-owner Todd Wagner is a trustee of the American Film Institute (AFI) which was set up with funds from the Rockefeller-associated Ford Foundation.

Already in the 1930s, the Rockefellers endowments empire was one of the chief instigators of the film industry as an instrument of mass propaganda, manipulation and control which it operated through Rockefeller-funded outfits like the General Education Board (GEB) and the American Film Center (AFC) (Decherney, p. 147).

The Rockefellers: a portrait of international financiers-socialists

Indeed, the Rockefellers have a long history of support for nonwhite interests going back to John D. Rockefeller (the founder of Standard Oil) himself. Due to his ruthless business practices, John D. Rockefeller was one of the most hated men of the time. To improve his image, he supplemented his business activities with philanthropic projects, one of the first of which was funding the Spelman College for African-American Women.

His son John D. Rockefeller Jr. followed a similar career. Notably, he was a disciple and financial supporter of John Dewey, a president of the Fabian Socialist League for Industrial Democracy (LID) which the London Fabian Society described as "one of our provincial societies" (see Ch. 2, The Fabian Conspiracy).

In 1918, J. D. R., Jr. co-founded the experimental Lincoln School of New York which was run according to Deweyian teachings, indoctrinating the offspring of Americas wealthy classes with a sense of personal guilt for the worlds ills and a duty to actively participate in the construction of a new and "better" society on Fabian Socialist lines.

Being funded by the Rockefellers General Education Board, operated by the Fabian Socialist-dominated School of Education at Rockefeller-founded Columbia University, according to the teachings of Rockefeller-supported Fabian Socialist Dewey and staffed with Fabian Socialist teachers from the Rockefeller-funded Teachers College, the Lincoln School was as thoroughly a Fabian Socialist institution as it was a Rockefellerian one.

The close ideological and financial interconnections between Fabian Socialist and Rockefeller interests also show why, for all practical purposes, Fabian Socialism and Rockefellerism a.k.a. "Rockefeller Republicanism" are indistinguishable from each other.

In the 1920s, J. D. R., Jr. had four of his sons - Nelson, Winthrop, Laurance and David - indoctrinated at the Lincoln School near Harlem (Rockefeller, pp. 26-7; Martin, p. 404; Collier, 192). This also explains the psychological urge of the Rockefeller Clan to support Fabian Socialism and its projects:

for the Rockefellers, Fabian Socialism including unreserved and unexamined support for non-white causes, has become a kind of religious mania.

While setting up their Fabian-inspired educational institutions, the same banking and industrial interests set up the Commission on Interracial Cooperation (CIC), among whose leaders was George Foster Peabody, deputy chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, director of the Rockefellers General Education Board and trustee of various organizations promoting African-American education like the Tuskegee and Hampton institutes.

One of Peabodys more eccentric feats was supporting the promotion of Negro Spiritual songs in US Army camps and organizing a European tour of the black Hampton Choir to "arouse the British public" (Schenbeck, 2005).

His Commission on Interracial Cooperation received grants from the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Fund along with well-known subversive organizations like the London School of Economics and the Institute of Pacific Relations (Harley, p. 395).

Other organizations through which the Rockefeller Foundation and the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial (later reincarnated as the Spelman Fund of New York) promoted interracial relations and education along with African-American culture included the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History and a string of associated black colleges and universities.

This already impressive network of organizations acquired a further international dimension through various interlocking outfits like the International Institute of Teachers College (Columbia University), the Institute of International Education of New York and the League of Nations International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation (a.k.a. International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation) of Paris which operated in close collaboration with the International Institute of Educational Cinematography of Rome.

This international network soon became global both at official level - the work of some of these organizations being taken over by the UNESCO, which is controlled by the same interests - and unofficially, through private outfits like the Synergos Institute which is run by the Rockefellers (David and his daughter Peggy Dulany) themselves.

The Rothschilds and other British billionaires - socialists

The Rockefellers European counterparts, the Rothschilds themselves, were no strangers to the systematic promotion of black causes. Lord Victor Rothschild, the Labour peer in the House of Lords, was a jazz enthusiast who introduced his sister Kathleen Pannonica de Koenigswarter ("Nica") to the genre.

The "Jazz Baroness", as Nica came to be known, left England for New York where she not only became a leading promoter of African-American music, civil rights and feminism in the 1950s and 60s, but went further than most white millionaire philanthropists, becoming romantically involved with black American pianist Thelonious Monk ("The secret life of the Jazz Baroness", The Times, 11 Apr. 2009; "The Jazz Baroness", BBC Four, 17 Apr. 2009).

We may observe that Rothschild women continue to "lead by example": As noted earlier, Emma Rothschild is married to the leftist Indian economist Amartya Sen, while Kate Rothschild, married to Ben Goldsmith, has been involved with African-American hip-hop singer Jay Electronica (Timothy Thedford) who is believed to be a member of the black activist organization Five Percent Nation which was set up by elements with links to the Nation of Islam ("Goldsmith and Rothschild dynasties head for divorce", Daily Telegraph, 8 Jun. 2012; "The Rothschild Rap", Daily Mail, 10 Jun. 2012).

It may be added that to the same elite circle have also belonged Ben Goldsmiths sister Jemima, who married the Pakistani cricketer Imran Khan and her friend, the late Princess Diana, who was involved with various men of Pakistani and Middle Eastern origin.

This type of behaviour on the part of members of the same social group cannot be mere coincidence. Nor can it be unconnected with the money powers systematic promotion of the mixed-race couple as a desired ideal. In addition to representing the aberrant actions of dysfunctional and culturally-disoriented elite, such behaviour is clearly politically motivated.

Together with other factors such as Prince Charless systematic promotion of Islam and rap "music" (see Ch. 10, Islamization), it demonstrates the Establishments determination to play a leading role in the deliberate deconstruction of European society, its culture and civilization. It also shows that what was once the behaviour of left-wing fringe activists is now becoming an elite-imposed cultural norm.

Another supporter of African-American causes was the Scottish-born steel tycoon Andrew Carnegie who, like the Rockefellers and Lord Victor Rothschild, was an admirer of Socialism and author of books like Problems of To-day - Wealth, Labor, Socialism (1908) in which he disparaged wealth and millionaires.

Significantly, there appears to be a close ideological connection between Carnegie and Fabian Society leader Bernard Shaw. In 1886, Shaw published the essay "Socialism for Millionaires" in which he wrote that "money is worth nothing to the man who has more than enough," advising the wealthy to spend their money on social (i.e., Fabian) projects. According to Shaw, his essay started a "Millionaire Movement, inspiring Carnegie to declare that no man should die rich (Shaw, pp. 2, 15). It may be noted that Lord Rothschild made similar pronouncements (Ferguson, p. 481).

At any rate, Carnegie funded the National Negro Business League (NNBL) as well as being a major donor to the Tuskegee Institute and similar causes (cf. Martin, p. 370).

Black organizations associated with the Fabian Society and Anglo-American billionaires

Among other organizations promoting African-American causes that can be linked with both Fabian Socialism and the money power is the National Negro Committee (NNC), later National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

NAACP was Americas first civil rights organization. It was set up in 1909 by Fabian Socialists like William English Walling of the American Fabian League and the African-American William E. B. Du Bois who later joined the Fabian Intercollegiate Socialist Society (ISS) (Martin, pp. 178 fn, 181). The Rockefellers Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has been strongly represented in the NAACP (Smoot, p. 124).

Last but not least, there were more militant initiatives like South Africas Black Consciousness Movement (BCM) which was supported by the Anglican Church (an offshoot of the Fabian-dominated Church of England which was a founding member of the Rockefeller-funded Christian Socialist World Council of Churches) and members of the Anglo-American Establishment like the Astors. Key sponsors of these militant currents in America were agencies of the Anglo-American Establishment such as the left-wing Ford Foundation.

(For the Socialist credentials of Henry Ford and his Foundation see: Sutton, 1974, p. 154; Smoot, pp. 31, 136; Martin, p. 446.

For the Ford Foundations support of radical pro-black, pro-immigrant and other left-wing causes see: Rooks, pp. 83, 94; Lengell, 2007; Horowitz & Laksin, pp, 53, 55 ff.).

Significantly, while supporting black "liberation" movements, the Rockefellers Chase Manhattan Bank in the 1970s and 80s led a move by major US banks - followed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and European banks - to stop loans to South Africas public and private sectors (Kristof, 1985), facilitating thereby the fall of the white government and take-over by the black African National Congress party (ANC), a Socialist organization with close links to Milner-Fabian interests.

The promotion of interracial and intercultural relations in favour of the black minority may have seemed a worthy endeavour in the early 1900s when blacks were exposed to widespread discrimination. The problem is that, as with other "philanthropic" or "humanitarian" projects of the international money power, its true purpose was to increase the money powers own wealth, influence and power while simultaneously covering up its agenda of world domination and providing it with a veneer of false respectability and benignancy.

From inception, the promotion of black causes served to provide the money power with a ready supply of efficient workers and loyal service men (hence, for example, the promotion of Negro Spiritual songs in US Army camps).

Similarly, the money powers later promotion of non-whites at the expense of whites has served and continues to serve as a cynical smokescreen for the predatory activities of Anglo-American corporations in Africa and elsewhere where, in close collaboration with black local leaders, they extract natural resources for their own profit while imposing a life of poverty, dictatorship and slavery on the native populations:

as may be seen from the experience of South Africa, white rule is being replaced with black Socialist dictatorships backed by multinational corporations - a clear reflection of mankinds Fabian-designed future.

Another problem is that the world has moved on: since the 2009 installation of Barack Obama as President of the United States (arguably, the most powerful political leader in the world), blacks in the Western world can no longer be said to represent an oppressed minority.

In fact, in countries like Brazil, where blacks amount to half of the total population, blacks no longer are a minority at all and the same applies to many Western cities, especially in America, where in twenty-two large cities minorities make up the majority ("5 Most Surprising Findings From the 2010 Census", Time, 20 Dec. 2011) and, increasingly, also in Europe (Amsterdam, London, Paris, etc.).

Moreover, whites are not being promoted in black-majority countries in the same way as blacks are promoted in white-majority ones. There are no quotas for whites in African governments or state organizations. Groups representing the human rights of whites, to the extent that they exist at all, do not wield the same degree of power and influence as comparable non-white groups do in Europe. Nor is there mass immigration of Europeans into Africa.

It follows that interracial relations remain biased towards black populations everywhere and there is no sign of attempts to redress this trend.

A more sinister aspect of the problem is that militant movements like South Africas BCM and Americas Black Power have spawned organizations which are not only pro-black but positively anti-Western and anti-white.

The Rockefellers are funding the propaganda of black racism

Nor are anti-white attitudes restricted to the militant currents within the movement. As in Britain, there is mounting evidence that Americas use of interracial relations for political purposes is snowballing out of proportion and out of control. Through its education, media and related industries the money power has come to increasingly project black and mixed-race individuals as intellectually, morally or physically superior to their white counterparts.

In the film industry, this has its roots in a new, enormously influential genre which emerged in the early 1970s. Known as "blaxploitation", it was based on the militant rhetoric of the Black Power and Black Studies movements. Early examples were Sweet Sweetbacks Baadasssss Song and Shaft (1971) telling the story of a black man striking back at representatives of white authority (Rooks, p. 82).

To better understand the nature of this genre, we only need to follow the career of the black actor Denzel Washington, one of Americas leading film stars.

In 1975, Edward Zwick, a white Chicagoan Harvard graduate and recipient of a Rockefeller fellowship, became a directing fellow of the Ford-Rockefeller-funded American Film Institute (AFI). Following the "blaxploitation" pattern, Zwick in 1989 directed the film Glory, about a black regiment in the American Civil War, in which Denzel Washington played Trip, an escaped slave who joined the Norths Union forces against the Souths Confederates.

In 1996, Zwick directed Courage Under Fire, again starring Denzel Washington as Lt.-Col. Serling who was tasked with finding the truth behind a covered-up incident during the Gulf War, in effect acting as a sort of "conscience" to society.

Predictably enough, Washington later starred in the apocalyptic film The Book of Eli (2007) in which he played a wandering black prophet battling a dictatorial white leader.

It may be added that Zwick belongs to a class of film directors who like to cast whites in a negative light, while Denzel Washingtons favourite hero is the black supremacist leader Malcolm X, whom he played in a film of that title (1992) distributed by Time Warner subsidiary Warner Bros.

The toxic implications of all this come to light when we consider that Malcolm X was the spokesman for the Nation of Islam (NOI), an African-American organization teaching that whites are "devils" and reportedly advising its followers to ritually kill whites (Tsoukalas, pp. 23-4), usually through beheading (the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby by black Muslims and similar incidents elsewhere show that this form of crime against white people is spreading to other parts of the world).

On balance, it is evident that we are dealing with a subtle, yet systematic and pervasive form of propaganda (conducted by operatives of the white money powers entertainment industry) in which the construction of black or mixed-race individuals as morally superior characters is skillfully combined with criticism of white society and, in particular, of white leadership. It follows that the election of the mixed-race Barack Obama as President of the United States - with the assistance of the same "progressive" elites and their financial backers - cannot be unconnected with the systematic propaganda that went before it.

Indeed, while the "Republican" Rockefellers had quietly prepared the ground from behind the scenes, it was the Democrat Bill Clinton who, in the early 1990s, officially promised an administration "that looked like America", that is, like Americas Fabian Socialist-engineered multiracial society.

Of particular interest is that in the very first year of Clintons presidency, the US weekly magazine Time published a special issue featuring a frontpage computer image of the projected new mixed-race American ("The New Face of America: How Immigrants Are Shaping the Worlds First Multicultural Society", Time, 18 Nov. 1993), which can only be described as promotional literature for multiculturalism and multiracialism.

Time is published by Time Inc., which also publishes People (see above) and is a part of Time Warner. The latter is not only the largest media corporation in the world but is controlled by the Anglo-American Establishment.

Time magazine itself was founded by Morgan-Rockefeller interests and, like The Economist in Britain, is an organ of the Anglo-American money power. For example, the chief editor of Time Inc. from 1964 to 1979 was Hedley W. Donovan, a Rhodes Scholar, trustee of the Ford and Carnegie (CEIP) foundations, as well as CFR and Trilateral Commission member. Times chief editor in 1993 was Jason McManus, a Rhodes Scholar and CFR member.

Radical Socialists Clintons

President Clinton himself was a fellow Rhodes Scholar and Trilateral Commission member. His wife Hillary was a disciple of radical left-winger Saul Alinsky, who taught his followers how to seize political power through a small core of disciplined activists, and wrote a sympathetic thesis on him (Remnick, p. 130).

Unsurprisingly, Hillary has become one of the key figures who control the Democratic Party both directly (she became chairwoman of the Senate Democratic Steering and Coordination Committee in 2003) and indirectly, through her political action committee (HillPAC) which funds political allies.

Golem of the Rothschilds - George Soros - financial sponsor of black movements and immigration [*]

Another instrument of control is a network of "independent" fundraising groups controlled by Hillarys ally, the left-wing radical plutocrat and long-time Rothschild collaborator George Soros (Horowitz & Poe, pp. 61-2).

Like his Rockefeller and other associates, Democratic financier and activist Soros has a long history of backing non-white causes, from financing black students in South Africa to bankrolling pro-immigration groups in America (Sudetick & Soros, p. 13; Lengell, 2007) and pro-immigration and pro-African outfits in Europe such as the Oxford Martin School (see below).

Not unexpectedly, therefore, having given more that $20 million to Democratic groups in 2004, he also spearheaded Wall Street support for presidential candidate Barack Obama. The latter had moved to Chicago in the early 1980s, when that city was run by its first African-American mayor and, like Clinton, became a faithful disciple of Alinsky as well as having Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis as political mentor.

Obama became involved with the Developing Communities Project, an Alinsky outfit funded by liberal elements of Chicagos Catholic Church and with the Gamaliel Foundation, an umbrella for Alinskian organizations which works in close collaboration with the African-American Leadership Commission.

Obama was also a lecturer at the Rockefeller-created Chicago University and, significantly, a selfconfessed Marxist (Slevin, 2007; Block, 2008; Horowitz & Laksin, pp. 19 ff.).

In 2007 and 2008, Soros openly declared his preference for Obama and the radical change he would bring ("Clinton Enters 08 Field, Fueling Race For Money", NYT, 21 Jan. 2007; "Soros, Obama and the Art of the Hedge", NYT, 23 Jan. 2008).

[*] My note.

Details of how the Rothschild clan created its "golem" George Soros are outlined in the following articles:

• William Engdahl, "The secret financial network behind vizard George Soros" (November 1, 1996);

• Scott Thompson "George Soros: a Golem made in Britain" (August 29, 1997);

• Jeffrey Steinberg, "George Soros: the Queens drug pusher" (August 29, 1997).

End of my note.

Wall Street bankers are sponsoring Marxist Obama

Apart from Soros, there have been Wall Street figures among Obamas backers whose financial institutions the reader will identify as familiar members of the Anglo-American Establishment: in 2012, one of these was Antonio Weiss, global head of investment banking at Lazard. With senior Lazard advisers like the Fabian Socialist Peter Mandelson, this is not in the least surprising.

Moreover, the Rockefellers themselves may be indirectly linked with Barack Obama through associated interests like Soros, whose Tides outfits they are funding and, in particular, the banking company Goldman Sachs.

In 2003, Thomas Healey, a retired partner of Goldman Sachs & Co., became a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation and chairman of its investment committee. Co-chairman of Goldman Sachs Jon Corzine, a left-wing Democrat, was involved in the recruitment of Obama and in fundraising for Obamas Democratic Party. Goldman Sachs executives reportedly sent Obama sums of money exceeding those of all other companies ("Elections 2006; Corzine Has A Lot at Stake in His Stout Support of Menendez", NYT, 3 Nov. 2006; "Obamas NotSo-Hot Date with Wall Street", NYT, 2 May, 2012).

More directly, Rockefeller interests are linked to Obama through a number of key figures with JPMorgan Chase connections with whom Obama surrounded himself before and after the election, such as James Crown, William Daley and Jamie Dinon, as well as Robert Rubin of Citigroup.

Obama also received a substantial share of financial backing from members of the Rothschild Clan ("Change", NYT, 11 Nov. 2008).

In short, while the money powers massive support for the left-wing Obama (whose electoral campaign raised over $600 million as opposed to George W. Bushs $367 million four years earlier) exposes its political preferences. Obama's election in 2008 marked a dramatic turn to the left, which the money powers Trilateral Commission hailed as a "great leap forward" (see Ch. 10, lslamization).

To their credit, critics of Obama have launched various initiatives, such as Restore Our Future, a political action committee (PAC) set up in 2010 in support of Republican candidate Mitt Romney. The PAC has enjoyed the financial support of prominent individuals and corporations from Bob Perry, John Paulson and Sheldon Adelson to Sun Capital Advisor and Continental Resources ("Sheldon Adelson Sets New Standard as Campaign Aid Changes Into 8 Figures", NYT, 13 Jun. 2012).

This clearly shows that financial interests are not all backing the designs of the Anglo-American money power. True, among Republican supporters there may be individuals with business links to the interests backing the Democrats. But it should not be impossible for such individuals to separate politics from business interests. The main point is that financial support for the opposition can easily be organized when there is a will to do so.

Whether the opposition realizes the extent to which the Milner-Fabian Conspiracy dominates American society or, whether it can organize itself in time to make a difference, is another matter. What is certain is that, in view of what is at stake, the wealthy Rights involvement in political activism has become a long-term political imperative as well as a moral obligation.

As a trained "community organizer", Mr Obama is a resourceful adversary. In a bid to win immigrant votes, he announced an executive action (Dream Act) allowing more than 800,000 illegal immigrants to remain and work in the country ("Obama to Permit Young Migrants to Remain in US", NYT, 15 Jun. 2012). With 12 million illegal immigrants already living in the US, it is easy to see through Obamas ruse.

Predictably, while critics have (not without justification) condemned the act as undemocratic and illegal, it has been cheered by immigrant leaders. As in Britain and other European countries, immigration in America is being promoted as a means of creating a pool of loyal supporters for left-wing elites and their subversive programmes.

Thus, not only Western economies but also Western political systems have been made dependent on immigration. This provides further supporting evidence for our contention that Western society is becoming a society ruled by immigrants for immigrants. It is a contention confirmed with approval by the money power itself, whose mouthpiece, the Time magazine, proudly announces that "our countries have been transforming themselves into immigrant societies".

The fact is that our countries have not been transforming themselves but have been transformed into immigrant societies by the money power and its political lackeys against the will and interests of the majority population. Statements like the above not only expose the money powers duplicity but also reveal its true colours, clearly showing whose side it has chosen to take: the same Time article calls for America to "expand massively" the number of immigrants with skills it allegedly needs, ominously hailing America as a "universal nation" in the making ("Broken and Obsolete", Time, 18 Jun. 2012).

In light of these facts, a clear money-driven pattern emerges, which shows that these developments are by no means the result of chance and even less of democratic processes, but of behind-the-scenes machinations by undemocratic elites with a warped sense of "philanthropy" and a pathological obsession with social engineering and world rule "for the public good".

Fabian roots of racial mixing

It is a pattern with well-documented financial and ideological roots: Fabian mastermind Bernard Shaw, himself a leading light in the fields of media, entertainment and propaganda, and close friend of money interests like the Astors who had close links to the Morgan and Rockefeller groups, was one of the first to advocate the fusion of the races, declaring in the 1930s:

"I believe in fusion. The more fusion the better" and "The future is to the mongrel, not to the Junker [young German aristocrat]".

Like his ideological successors, Shaw did not stop at theory. He made practical proposals such as the introduction of collective farms which would operate like a sort of open-air universities and contribute to the mixing of the races (Holroyd, vol. 3, pp. 283-4).

The Fabian leaders proposals explain. why throughout the Western world universities have become not only immigration and miscegenation factories but also nuclei of anti-white agitation: it was in the womb of these universities, inseminated with Socialist ideas and nourished by the self-serving largesse of "philanthropic" and "humanist" billionaires and their foundations, that the Black Consciousness, Black Liberation and Black Power movements were born (Rooks, pp. 83, 94).

Then as now, the unspoken implication was that the white race was to have no future - a proposition clearly echoed by Times "The New Face of America", the Independents "The future of society is mixed", the Daily Mails "Reggies the Voice of the future", etc. The construction of black and mixed-race individuals as "stronger" and "more attractive" than white people leads to the same implications and the same results. Those who aim for what is "superior" and "desirable" also aim to eliminate what is "inferior" and "undesirable".

Thus the idealization and idolization of the black and mixed races goes hand in hand with a marked phobia of the white race. These two interdependent and mutually reinforcing tendencies must be identified as the primary symptoms of the collective psychopathology caused by Milner-Fabian ideology in Western society. The result of this condition is that we are currently witnessing what the Observer has described as "the last days of the white world".

The objective consideration of the available evidence enables us to trace the origins of these developments to the Fabian-instigated and billionaire-funded "New Age", "counter-culture" and "student revolution" projects which culminated in the black movements mentioned above.

In April 1969, the Detroit Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization (IFCO) convened a conference on interracial relations, called Black Economic Development Conference (BEDC). IFCO commissioned the black Marxist activist and community organizer James Forman, of Chicago, to write a report on the issues under discussion.

Forman produced a document entitled "The Black Manifesto" demanding $500 million in reparations and stating:

"to win our demands we will have to declare war on the white Christian churches and Jewish synagogues."

In May, Forman read his manifesto in the Rockefeller-sponsored Riverside Church of New York, declaring:

"Our fight is against racism, capitalism, and imperialism, and we are dedicated to building a socialist society inside the U.S. where the total means of production and distribution are in the hands of the state, and that must be led by black people" (Allitt, pp. 112-3).

Formans document allegedly sparked outrage among Americas white supporters of black causes. However, students of the Rockefeller-associated National Council of Churches (NCC) had been among the financial sponsors of the Detroit Conference that generated the document (Findlay, p. 130) and, in 1973, IFCO leader Lucius Walker, who had organized the Conference, was appointed associate general secretary of NCC.

Moreover, as detailed above, the money power continued to act in the spirit of Formans declaration, engineering only four decades later the election of Barack Obama (also of Chicago and a disciple of the same tradition of "community organization", i.e., Communism by another name) as President of the United States.

What is more, Barack Obama is the son of a Muslim from Kenya, of the same name. The name Barack itself is an Arab and Muslim name. These facts cannot be unconnected with the Rockefellers interreligious and interracial brand of religion as sponsored by their Riverside Church (which sports a figure of prophet Mohammed) and associated outfits.

In addition to promoting African-American interests, the Rockefeller Group also promotes Latin American causes represented by organizations like the National Council of La Raza (UnidosUS). Modelled on the NAACP, La Raza was set up in the 1960s by operatives of the Rockefeller-controlled Ford Foundation and is funded by Ford-Rockefeller-Soros interests and associates like the Gates Foundation.

La Raza has been linked with radical organizations pursuing a hidden agenda to "reconquer" the US for Latin Americans, especially Mexicans.

In 2011, two years after Obamas assumption of power, the US national research agency Policy Link produced a "Map of Americas Tomorrow" showing that by 2042, white people will be a minority in America. Policy Links African-American founder and CEO Angela Glover Blackwell wrote:

"as a nation, we can see our future and it is captured in the hopes of a 5-year-old Latina girl and a 7-year-old African American boy" ("Americas Tomorrow: Equity is the Answer", at www.policylink.org).

Blackwell is a former senior vice-president at the Rockefeller Foundation.

Meanwhile, the Synergos Institute, a key outfit in the Rockefellers international endowments empire and parent organization of the exclusive Global Philanthropists Circle, claims to be "working to create a more just and equitable global society in which all individuals, families and communities have a meaningful opportunity to improve the quality of their lives for themselves and future generations" (www.synergos.org).

Given that the same sources are proudly announcing that the future belongs to Latinos and African-Americans, this obviously excludes white individuals, families and communities (see also PFNYC, p. 512).

The Rockefeller-inspired belief that Americas future belongs exclusively to Latinos and blacks is paralleled by its Rothschild-dominated European counterpart to the effect that the future belongs to non-white immigrants.

Ian Goldin, former principal economist with the Rothschilds European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and currently head of the influential Oxford Martin School - a massive Soros-funded operation involving hundreds of Oxford academics, whose advisory council includes Rothschild and Soros associates like Amartya Sen, Joseph Stiglitz and Nicholas Stern - believes that we all should overcome the thought that we are pure-bred Europeans and "think of ourselves as Africans" instead (Goldin, 2013).

Thus, while there is no doubt that movements aiming to impose white supremacy, such as National Socialism, have existed in the past, the present activities of non-white supremacist currents, notably initiated and led by elements of the Anglo-American Milner-Fabian Establishment, cannot be denied or ignored. They must be strongly condemned and combated by the international community and, particularly, by the UN, EU and other leading international organizations.

Finally, like its other pet slogan "we are all equal", the Lefts claim "we are all Africans" - based on the disputed "Out-of-Africa Theory" [*] - must be exposed as blatantly contradicting its own preferential treatment of non-whites, institutionalization of miscegenation and other entrenched tactics in its repertoire: if all humans are equal, why insist that mixed-race people are "stronger", "more attractive", "more successful", etc. than others?

[*] My note.

The myth that a "black Eve" from Central Africa is the mother of all humanity, and that races arose because some descendants of this Eve migrated north, where they became white-skinned and blue-eyed, while others migrated east, where they became yellow-skinned and slanted, can only convince someone with the intelligence of an elementary school student.

To challenge this myth, it's enough to ask a simple question: how did a community of brown-eyed people transform into a community of blue-eyed people? After all, the modern union of genetics and anthropology asserts that eye color is considered a "trait resistant to environmental influences."

Science has long since refuted the myths of the Fabian Society's adherents.

For example, the eminent biologist Ivan Shmalgauzen, back in 1968, completely rejected the hypothesis that different races arose through adaptation to the external environment or mutations. In his book "Cybernetic Questions of Biology," he wrote:

"The genetic code is protected from external influences by the nuclear membrane and the regulatory mechanisms of the cell and the entire organism. The inheritance of traits acquired during the life of an individual is virtually impossible, since this acquisition concerns only the transformation of information within the individual and perishes with it. The genetic material is not affected by this transformation and remains unchanged."

Russian geneticist Viktor Spitsyn in his book Biochemical Polymorphism in Man (1985) comes to an unambiguous conclusion: racial characteristics are not adaptive in nature, and the external environment has no influence on them.

Geneticists' conclusions about the independent origins of races are also supported by research into dermatoglyphics - the study of human skin patterns - in which Henrietta Heath is considered a world authority. In her book, "Racial Differentiation of Humanity" (1990), she draws the following conclusion:

"The major racial branches of humanity are original, independently formed subdivisions of the human species."

Source: Alexander Sevastyanov, "Fundamentals of Ethnopolitics" (2017).

End of my note.

This self-contradiction also removes the basis of the Lefts traditional opposition to past European colonization of Africa and other non-white territories: if all races are equal and all humans are African, why object to colonization? Were not white colonists as much at home in Africa (where they supposedly came from) as the native Africans?

Likewise, if the colonization of America by Europeans was wrong, why is it right to now colonize it with Asians and blacks? Why promote an African-American as president and not a Native American?

Either colonization is bad and we object to all forms of it, or colonization is good and there is no objection to it.

The Lefts objection to some forms of colonization (i.e., by whites) and simultaneous promotion of others (i.e., by non-whites) exposes its entire ideological system as a sham designed to enforce world domination by the self-serving international money interests behind it.

In sum, the aim of the money power and its instruments of indoctrination, propaganda, manipulation and control (the political establishment and associated race-relations, media, entertainment and advertising industries) is to institutionalize mass immigration and miscegenation with a view to establishing a mixed-race (i.e., non-white) global population as a means of imposing world government.

This anti-white counter-culture which has infiltrated the whole of the Western world is the deliberate creation of a cult-like movement that believes in the self-sacrifice of the white race, its culture and civilization on the altar of globalism and world rule.

WHAT CAN BE DONE TO PREVENT THE EXTINCTION OF EUROPES INDIGENOUS POPULATION?

In its May/June 2012 issue, the CFR journal Foreign Affairs belatedly acknowledged the Western worlds population crisis. While highlighting the demographic decline in European countries like Austria, Germany and Russia, it also (disingenuously) claimed that the United States fertility rate is "about the replacement level" ("Baby Gap", Foreign Affairs, May/June 2012).

The fact is that, while the fertility rate for the total population may be at "replacement level", this is not so in the white population. As indicated by the data given above, Americas white population will be a small minority within a few decades and from there to extinction it is not far.

Similar predictions have been made for Europe and Britain ("The last days of a white world", Observer, 3 Sept. 2000; Coleman, 2010).

As the homeland of the European race, Europe is particularly important for the survival of white people. In consequence, measures to ensure that Europe can continue to provide a home for future generations of indigenous Europeans must urgently be taken.

In light of the undeniable parallels between the historical European colonization of other continents and the current colonization of Europe by non-Europeans, it is pertinent to point out some methods and aims of the various anti-colonial movements. For example, in India, these were:

(1) self-government;

(2) promotion of indigenous self-interests, in particular, economic self-sufficiency;

(3) cultural, religious and political education aiming to make the indigenous population conscious of its spiritual and cultural heritage and expose the anti-indigenous character of the ruling colonial order; and (4) boycott of non-indigenous goods and services, etc. (Ghose, p. 603; cf. Sharp, 1973, 2005, etc.).

The objective was to strengthen the position of the freedom movement and weaken, indeed inflict maximum damage to, the colonial order. Mutinies among the armed forces were also effective in this sense, which shows the need for greater participation of the military in defending democracy at home.

The following are some measures that could be taken as part of Europes own anti-colonial movement with equal success:

1. The indigenous population must openly challenge the state-imposed immigrationist policies which violate and deny its fundamental and inalienable right to life and self-determination, for example, by demanding a referendum on immigration and population replacement, demanding a total ban of non-indigenous immigration and initiating legal action against the authorities responsible.

History shows that public opinion matters. In the past, public pressure has forced governments (including left-wing ones) to introduce pro-indigenous legislation, for example, aimed at restricting immigration. However, such steps have rarely been fully implemented in practice. In addition, they have been offset by covert counter-measures such as relaxation of immigration controls and encouragement of immigration through incentives like preferential employment, housing, and social welfare benefits.

Therefore, of particular importance is:

(1) to raise consciousness in the indigenous population of the Situation which is that (a) the political leadership is self-interested, disingenuous and antagonistic to its interests and (b) that the indigenous population is being replaced with immigrants and

(2) make it aware of the fact that it is not only legitimate but necessary to express concern and to pressure politicians into genuinely addressing that concern in an effective, fair and democratic manner. Indeed, this is a moral duty owed to future indigenous generations.

2. Efforts must be made to achieve a reduction in indigenous emigration.

3. Higher birth rates in indigenous communities must be encouraged through community and government support.

4. The indigenous population must be united, organized and mobilized in opposition to official anti-indigenous policies. In particular, using all the legal means available, indigenous communities must aim to establish their own independent local governments, courts of law, political parties, media outlets, schools, religious organizations and places of worship, as well as police and armed forces.

5. The indigenous population must set up fact-finding, research and study groups to identify and investigate anti-indigenous interests, their history, policies, mode of operation, connections, sources of support and impact on indigenous society, with a view to monitoring, exposing and taking action against them.

6. The indigenous population must boycott or take other suitable action against all media, educational institutions, charity organizations, business enterprises, sport organizations, religious bodies and other governmental or nongovernmental projects working against its interests.

7. Indigenous paramountcy must be introduced and enforced.

Indigenous or native paramountcy is the (morally and legally sound) principle whereby the interests of a native population are paramount and override those of immigrant populations.

It was first introduced by the British Government in the 1920s to safeguard the rights and the future of East African natives who were under threat from non-native (Indian and European) immigration. It was promoted at the time by Church leaders, both Catholic and Protestant, and in particular, by leading political ideologists such as Sidney Webb who controlled the Labour Partys colonial policy (Gregory, pp. 110 ff.).

Philip Noel-Baker, Parliamentary Private Secretary to Foreign Secretary Arthur Henderson and a leading agent of Milner-Fabian interests (he served as assistant to Lord Robert Cecil and Sir Eric Drummond) called for it to be enshrined in international law.

In light of the fact that the last few decades have seen a dramatic reversal of the demographic situation, with Europes indigenous population now being as much under threat from non-European immigration as Africas natives were from non-African immigration, it is both imperative and proper to now apply this principle in Europe.

NOTES

1. The primacy of righteousness in Christian tradition is evident from numerous scriptural statements, e.g., "thou, O man of God, follow after righteousness. Fight the good fight of faith" (1 Tim. 6:12-15). So central was the concept to European civilization that the word "righteous" must be regarded as identical to "civilized". The relation of righteousness to peace and happiness was also well understood in Classical times: God, the supreme Judge, punishes the wicked and rewards the righteous (Matt. 25:46).

The righteous alone are His true children who have become the sons of God by being reborn into the light of the true faith and by following His Law. They will shine as bright as the sun in the kingdom of their Father (13:38-43).

2. Like the watch-towers of concentration camps, the New World Orders "observatories" and associated organizations - UN Forum on Migration, International Organization for Migration, Migration Observatory, World Observatory on Cultural Diversity, etc. - are instruments through which the international money power and its political, academic and religious collaborators supervise the implementation of their policies of replacement of indigenous European populations.

The latters deliberate and systematic displacement, territorial dispossession and destruction of cultural heritage through immigration and multiculturalism is the prelude to their final extermination.

3. The Conservative Government under David Cameron failed not only to reduce immigration, but also multiculturalism, Islamization, taxation and public spending.

REFERENCES

Allitt, Patrick, Religion in America since 1945: A History, New York, NY, 2003.

Banton, Michael, Promoting racial harmony, Cambridge, 1985.

Bauer, Peter Thomas, Dissent on Development, London, 1976.

Bauer, P. T., Equality. the Third World and Economic Delusion, London, 1981.

Bauer, P. T., From Subsistence to Exchange and Other Essays, Princeton, NJ, 2000.

Block, Stephanie, "The Chickens Have Come Home to Roost: Obama, ACORN, and the Catholic Campaign for Human Development", Catholic Citizens of Illinois, 28 Sept. 2008 www.catholiccitizens.org

Boxell, James and Frey, Keith, "Migrants give boost to public finances", Financial Times, 3 Oct. 2010.

Caldwell, Christopher, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, London, 2009.

Callaghan, John, The Labour Party and Foreign Policy: A History, Abingdon, Oxon, 2007.

Carr, John, ''New Roads to Equality'', Fabian Tract No. 517, London, 1987.

Coleman, David, "When Britain becomes majority minority'', Prospect, 17 Nov. 2010.

Collier, Peter & Horowitz, David, The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty, London, 1976.

Davies, Nick, Flat Earth News, London, 2008.

Decherney, Peter, Hollywood and the Culture Elite: How the Movies Became American, New York, NY, 2005.

Dietrich, John, The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy, New York, NY, 2002.

Fanon, Frantz, Black Skin. White Masks, English trans., New York, NY, 1967.

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

Feuer, Lewis, Imperialism and the Anti-Imperialist Mind, Buffalo, NY,1986.

Findlay, James F., Church People in the Struggle: The National Council of Churches and the Black Freedom Movement, i950-i970, New York, NY, 1997.

Ford, Robert and Goodwin, Matthew, Revolt on the Right: Explaining support for the radical right in Britain, Abingdon, Oxon, 2014.

Ghose, Aurobindo, "Tilak: An Appreciation'', in Verinder Grover, ed., Bal Gangadhar Tilak: A Biography of His Vision and ideas, New Delhi, 1998.

Gledhill, Ruth, "Time to curb the 'asset strippers and robbers' who ruin the financial markets, say archbishops", The Times, 25 Sept. 2008.

Goldin, Ian, "Exceptional People: How Migration Shaped Our World and Will Define Our Future'', Prof. Ian Goldin, Director, Oxford Martin School, talks to Hein de Haas, Co-Director, International Migration Institute, May 2013, webcast on www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk

Graham, Georgia, "Sir John Major: Immigrants are grafters and natural Conservatives", Daily Telegraph, 12 Aug. 2014.

Gregory, Robert G., Sidney Webb and East Africa: Labour's Experiment with the Doctrine of Native Paramountcy, Berkeley, CA, 1962.

Gruber, Hermann, "Masonry," The Catholic Encyclopedia, New York, 1910, vol. 9, pp. 771-787.

Halsey, A. H. and Webb, J., Twentieth-Century British Social Trends, London,2000,p.65.

Harley, John Eugene, international Understanding: Agencies Educating for a New World, Stanford, CA, 1931.

Harrop, Andrew, "Home affairs: Too hot to handle?" in Denham, John, ed., The Shape of Things to Come: Labour's New Thinking, London, 2012, pp. 95-104.

Holroyd, Michael, Bernard Shaw, London, 1991.

Home Office, The Stephen Lawrence inquiry: Report of an inquiry by Sir William MacPherson of Cluny, Cm 4262-1, Feb. 1999.

Horowitz, David & Poe, Richard, The Shadow Party: How Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party, Nashville, TN, 2006.

Horowitz, David & Laksin, Jacob, The New Leviathan: How the LeftWing Money-Machine Shapes American Politics and Threatens America's Future, New York, NY, 2012.

Horrabin, J. F., Plebs, Mar. 1932, quoted in Padmore, George, "Left Imperialism and the Negro Toilers", Labour Monthly, vol. 14, No. 5, May 1932.

Joppke, Christian,Jmmigration and the Nation-State, New York, NY, 1999.

Kellner, Douglas, Media Culture: Cultural Studies, Identity, and Politics between the Modem and the Postmodern, London, 1995.

Kristof, Nicholas D., "U.S. Banks Cut Loans To South Africans Sharply", New York Times, 3 Aug. 1985.

Lengell, Sean, "Foundations Bankrolling Advocates for Aliens", Washington Times, 6 Jun. 2007.

Lewis, Russell, Anti-Racism: A Mania Exposed, London, 1988.

Lilley, Peter, "More Workers, Lower Living Standards", Sunday Telegraph, 27 Aug. 2006.

Lilley, Peter, "Letters", Evening Standard, 25 Jun. 2012.

Martin, Rose, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A., Chicago, IL, 1966.

Panton, Demetrious, "Why Won't Politicians and Police Accept That White People Can Be Victims Of Race Crime?" Mail on Sunday, 12 Nov. 2006.

Patterson, Sheila, Immigration and Race Relations in Britain 1960-1967, London, 1969.

Perry, Keith, "Rochdale taxi firm offers white drivers on request", Daily Telegraph, 22 Oct. 2014.

Platt, Lucinda, "Ethnicity and Family: Relationships Within and Between Ethnic Groups", Institute of Social and Economic Research, Essex University, Colchester, Essex, 2009.

Remnick, David, The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama, London & New York, 2010.

Riley-Smith, Ben, "Jose Manuel Barroso: 'Immigration cap will never be accepted by Europe'", Daily Telegraph, 20 Oct. 2014.

Rockefeller, David, Memoirs, New York, NY, 2002.

Rooks, Noliwe M., White Money/Black Power: The Surprising History of African American Studies and the Crisis of Race in Higher Education, Boston, MA, 2006.

St Augustine, City of God, trans. H. Bettenson, London, 2003.

Schenbeck, Lawrence, "Representing America, Instructing Europe: The Hampton Choir Tours Europe", Black Music Research Journal, vol. 25, issue 1-2, 2005.

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.

Sharp, Gene, The Politics of Nonviolent Action, part 2, The Methods of Nonviolent Action, Boston, MA, 1973.

Sharp, Gene, Waging Nonviolent Struggle: 20th Century Practice and 21'1

Century Potential, Manchester, NH, 2005.

Shaw, G. B., "Socialism for Millionaires", Fabian Tract No. 107, London, 1901.

Slevin, Peter, "For Clinton and Obama, a Common Ideological Touchstone", Washington Post, 25 Mar. 2007.

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.

Smoot, Dan, The Invisible Government, Boston, MA, 1962.

Sudetick, Chuck & Soros, George, The Philanthropy of George Soros: Building Open Societies, New York, NY, 2011.

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

Sutton, Antony C., Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, first published in New York, 1974, reprinted in Forest Row, East Sussex, 2011.

Tsoukalas, Steven, The Nation of Islam: Understanding the "Black Muslims", Phillipsburg, NJ, 2001.

Walters, Simon, Carlin, Brendan and Owen, Glen, "Tory Obama plots to oust the PM: MP behind secret bid for party leadership revealed as multimillionaire tycoon Adam Afriyie", Mail on Sunday, 26 Jan. 2013.

Оставить комментарий © Copyright Ratiu Ioan Обновлено: 19/06/2026. 206k. Статистика. Эссе: Великобритания Скачать FB2		Ваша оценка:

Ratiu Ioan: другие произведения.

Ioan Ratiu. Immigration