Extinction Rebellion and the Rise of the Fourth Reich


Many historians, sympathetic to the Resistance, blame President, For Life, Thunberg for the rise the Fourth Reich but that only tells half the story. The truth is, the One World Government was spawned in the darkness and the ashes of the Second World War, long before Greta’s fatal Extinction Rebellion.

Looking back it is clear to see that, in 1948, civilisation was mortally wounded and in its exhaustion it fell to the left. But in the age of ‘Unlearning’, that soon followed, people stopped asking questions and were happy to believe whatever the state told them to believe. After this date, the ancient philosophical divisions of ‘left’ and ‘right’ became effectively meaningless.

By the time Greta Thunberg was born, the One World Government, which later came to be called ‘The Fourth Reich’ had already achieved dominion. The ideology of  the fourth Reich controlled the media, the judiciary, the police, the universities and the military through its proxies: the United Nations, the World Bank and the European Union.

The United States of Europe, or as it was then known, the European Union, had been busy discrediting the concept of ‘nation states’ since 1992. Any resistance to the UN’s Agenda 21 or its program of race replacement was swiftly crushed. Anyone who complained about the destruction of their country or their culture felt the full terrifying power of the state.

It was in the context of this cultural vacuum that the Extinction Rebellion gave shape to a general feeling of unease shared by most. By 2010 it was obvious that there was something terribly wrong with the modern world.

The genius of the 4th Reich was to make the people see only what they were told to see. The corruption of the food chain, the mass rape of white women by immigrants, the drugging of the population, the pollution of the sea by the third world, these were questions not allowed.

It’s hard to believe but in the face of these obvious concerns, like kittens chasing shadows, the Extinction Rebellion obsessed over carbon emissions despite all the evidence that CO2 had nothing to do with the weather.

In order to understand how the Fourth Reich, that enslaves us now, was democratically voted into power, you must understand the reasons for the resurrection of the concept of national socialism that gave President Thunberg the excuse she had been waiting for in order to declare herself ‘President for Life’.

But I get ahead of myself. In order to understand the currents that swept away three thousand years of civilisation and 80% of the world’s population, you must understand how human society was ordered within the framework of that civilisation.


The Scale of the Sacred

Human beings are a paradox, we are at the same time an individual and, prior to the fourth Reich, we were also a part of a collective – a family, a village, a nation. To understand this dichotomy, Imagine you stand on a road with the ocean in front of you and the desert behind. The road runs East to West further than the eye can see. We will call this the road ‘the scale of the sacred.’

Why? Because that which a people hold sacred determines the essential nature of their society.

To your left, which we will call east, is the concept of the ‘collective’ and to your right is the concept of the ‘individual’. Prior to the industrial revolution, based on our Judeo/Christian culture there had been a kind of balance between the two ideas but after the Second World War that balance was destroyed.

To understand the nature of that loss of balance, imagine that you stand on that road with the east to your left. The desert that is behind you we will call negative coercion and the sea which is to the north of the road we will call positive coercion.

In order to motivate people to act they must have a reason to do so, that motivation or coercion may be either positive or negative.

Looking to our right, we see the individual as god and in the Post Modern Progressive Culture into which President Thunberg was born the individual was held as absolutely sacred. But what makes this idea so corrosive is that the individual only exists in reference to the individual itself.

It was this concept that finally killed the idea of objective truth or morality. Truth is what you say it is and there is no such thing as right or wrong – only what pleasures you.  The concept of the sacred individual also killed the natural instinct of the nurturing mother and the protective father, the loss of which may have greatly contributed to President Thunberg’s well known excesses in recent years.

If you hold yourself as sacred and you are your own god – acts of empathy or kindness are only attempts to validate your own faith and signal your idea of virtue to others. In such a world, violence is only ever seconds away. By 2003 the One World Government were already masters of the art of violence because in world full of narcissists violence or the threat of violence is the only way to ensure obedience.

But it was the Extinction Rebellion and President Thunberg, while still just a girl, that gave the mob and their violence a direction. Only extreme violence would have made a people accept their own destruction.

In 2025 under UN Agenda 21, the one world government made meat consumption illegal and slaughtered all domestic and farm animals.

With the animals and the topsoil gone, The subsequent mass starvation was inevitable.

Our vegan food poisoned our children with Monsanto chemicals. We found out too late that humans couldn’t digest Genetically modified food. Malnutrition crippled a generation. As travel was illegal the people had nowhere to run.

In response to the violence of the green movement, ethnic replacement and the destruction of their countries, people of good conscience all over the world, tried to resist but their revulsion to the concept of the sacred individual led these heroes to embrace its opposite: National Socialism.

Looking to the left of the scale of the sacred we see the ‘collective’ as god. But National Socialism sees that god only in context of the collective – Marxism, Socialism, Fascism were all symptoms of this disease.

The irony was that when we hold the individual as sacred in reference to only the individual itself or when we hold the collective as sacred in reference to only the collective – in both cases we must use negative coercion to control the people. It is for this reason that both extremes have always resulted in failure and genocide.

Long before the great killing of 2025, Anti-Semitism from both those who worshiped the collective and those who worshiped the individual had became normal again because validation for both can only come from destruction of the ‘other’.

Violence is therefore a natural product of negative coercion so it was inevitable that the violence of the newly reborn National Socialists would finally start the European Civil War. A demonstration in Rotherham against yet another rape scandal lead to the massacre of otherwise innocent Mulsims. As in the Lebonon in the previous century, Muslim Militias were formed. The civil war spread from the Britian to the rest of Europe and then the world.

Without that war, The United States of Europe would never have become an Islamic state and Greta would never have become President for Life.

But despite the horrors of the last hundred years, you must not lose hope! Looking back, we can now see that there was a solution to the madness of the fourth Reich. Like a mist in the mountains, ephemeral and yet beautiful beyond imagination, there is a balance between both concepts – the individual and the collective.

When the people hold the individual as sacred but within the context of the collective and when the collective is held as sacred in the context only of the individual there is a balance. But here is our problem, for this to work, we must use positive coercion and that can only happen when we share a common philosophical, moral and sociological matrix of belief that enshrines the concept of ‘All for One and One for All’.

Perhaps it’s ironic or maybe some kind of cosmic joke that throughout all of the centuries of genocide and war the only people that held this balance of the sacred was the Jewish people. Maybe it was that balance that caused them to be so successful and engender such hatred.

Now we will never know, when Europe became a part of the caliphate, the destruction of Israel was, of course, inevitable. Today, people take the extermination of the Jewish people as proof of their conspiracy – logically speaking it must have been the most unsuccessful conspiracy in history.

I have shown you why the only hope for our people is within nationalism but a kind of nationalism that holds the individual and not the collective as sacred. We must defy the law and once again study Jewish texts and rediscover what it was that helped them keep the sacred balance. If only we could find a way to turn the clock back on the industrial revolution we might be able to live in balance with our planet.


Julia Ebner - The Face of Tyranny


Julia Ebner, as a member of the Quilliam Foundation, came to fame after writing an article for the Guardian, in which she accused Tommy Robinson of being ‘Far-Right’ and a ‘White Supremacist’.

We are used to this sort of rubbish in the Guardian but many of us were wondering what had happened to the Quilliam Foundation, as Tommy had been working with them for a few years.

To find out, Tommy visited the offices of the Foundation to speak to Julia face to face. He and his cameraman were assaulted for their trouble and their equipment damaged. So why would Adam Deen and the likely lads at Quilliam feel so protected by law that they would assault Tommy and his cameraman?




I have to warn you! The answer will terrify you!


We all know that Muslims have been protected by the state for decades. The police, the media and the government will do anything rather than highlight the crimes committed by Muslims. It seemed logical then that the British State, in its ‘war’ with Radical Islam, would cling to the ‘moderate’ Quilliam Foundation like a drowning man desperately clings to any line you throw him. Unfortunately, we have been fatally naive, the answer is far more sinister!

With the addition of Julia Ebner in 2015, Quilliam went ‘International’ and while she was with them (she left in 2017 to work with the London Institute for Strategic Dialogue, more of which in a moment) she gave us a glimpse of the monster behind the corporate mask. Perhaps more importantly she and Quilliam have given us a clue as to why all western governments have been so intent on importing vast numbers of Muslim immigrants into the West (contrary to the wishes and the best interests of western indigenous populations) and how they will do anything to silence anyone who disagrees with their planned genocide.

For those of you who don’t know, it might be a good idea to explain who and what the Quilliam Foundation is!


Three former members of Hizb ut-Tahrir (Ed Husain, Maajid Nawaz and Rashad Zaman Ali) set up a foundation they called ‘Quilliam’, ostensibly to combat ‘Radical’ Islam.

They chose the name ‘Quilliam’ after a 19th century British convert to Islam who advocated for a worldwide Caliphate and the implementation of Sharia Law in the UK. Mr Quilliam’s views would now be considered to be ‘Radical’ by the British Home Office so the choice of the name for a ‘Moderate’ organisation is not obvious!

The Quilliam Foundation have made a name for themselves by creating a sort of ‘Islam-lite’.


They make the distinction that Islam and Islamism are two different things. Unfortunately, that means having Islam without the Prophet, which is a bit like having a Gin and Tonic, without the Gin.

Predictably enough, anyone with the reading age of ten and who has read the books of the religion of Islam (everybody in the world should read the Kor’an, Hadith and Sira) find the childish word play at best laughable and, at worst, a blatant attempt at Taqiya (lying). And there it would lay, if it were not for the fact that these ‘would be prophets of Islam-lite‘ have the ear of the government.


The truth is there is only Islam! There is no such thing as ‘Radical’ Islam! Islam is a religion based on the biography of a famous warlord from the 7th Century. It is foundational to the religion that his example and words are the perfect guide for all time and this is the problem: the man could not really be called ‘spiritual’ and was morally ambivalent, untrustworthy, violent and rather found of chopping people’s heads off.

To those of us who actually know something about Islam, the Quilliam Foundation (Now Quilliam International) seemed like a rather ‘dodgy’ lifeline on which to bet the lives of the British people. Most of us assumed that the state’s reliance on Quilliam was simply another example of government stupidity but we were wrong!

While Quilliam’s Maajid Nawaz was busy challenging ‘Radical’ Muslims on prime-time television nobody wanted to explore what Quilliam actually suggested as the solution to the ‘Muslim’ problem.


The Quilliam Foundation has suggested, in a secret memo, that governments should spy on all Muslims, even those who are not committing terrorist offences. That line bears repeating! That means ‘spy on ALL Muslims’! (I will link to Douglas Murray’s Guardian article in the references).

The problem for Muslims is that ‘Islam-lite’ has no textual validity. That leaves Muslims in a very tricky position! If they follow the texts of their religion they could be accused, by Quilliam, of being radicals. Either way, Muslims are in a lose/lose situation, lose their religion/culture or lose their freedom.

Some of you non-Muslims might titter at this suggestion but remember, tyranny rarely comes with a fanfare or announced in the news. It comes in slowly, like a knife in the back, so slowly you hardly notice it until it is too late.

And so, talking of tyranny, we naturally come back to our lovely Julia Ebner.


Julia left Quilliam and joined the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) in July 2017, just as the guns at Quilliam swept over the heads of Muslims and were brought firmly to bear on anyone who spoke against the progressive, multicultural narrative.

Although Julia’s academic background was focused on economics and Islamic terrorism her true love appears to be in fighting the ‘Right’.

The problem for Julia is that her writing is rather bad, and she insists on using ‘Alt-Right’, ‘Far-Right’ ‘White Supremacist’, Neo-Nazi enthusiastically and somewhat interchangeably.

As it transpires, in many ways Julia is very much like the Prophet of Islam! As you will see in a moment, she is morally ambivalent, vindictive and almost inhuman in her lack of self-awareness.

I won’t subject you to an analysis of her articles here (I will link to them below) so, in the interests of brevity, let’s look at two of her headlines.


The article that, quite rightly, annoyed Tommy was entitled ‘The Far Right Thrives on Global Networks. They must be fought online and off’.

From the beginning of her hit piece, Julia dismisses any opinion or concern she doesn’t agree with as ‘far right’ but never explains what she means by that term. The really worrying sentence is the second and it tells us that ‘they’ (whoever ‘they’ are?) should be fought online and off.

If you stop to think about these two statements, they  translate, on the one hand, to censoring speech, having people’s websites and work destroyed and, on the other, to an incitement to violence, which is exactly how ANTIFA took her advice last year when they attacked Tommy in the street.

Before the Second World War Julia would have been suggesting book burning and forcing people, who express ‘wrong speak’ or came from the wrong background, to wear stars of David on their clothes (sound familiar yet?)

The second article was charmingly entitled ‘Tommy Robinson’s cheerleaders are hypocrites, but his strategy is working’.

Again she derides out of hand anyone who would support Tommy Robinson as ‘Cheerleaders and Hypocrites’. She then, in the same sentence suggests that ‘his’ strategy is working. The fact that the poor man was languishing in jail and daily faced execution by Islamic fundamentalists, at the time, did not in any way assuage the bile of her invective.

The fact that she finishes nearly every article or talk with the accusation that her ‘enemies’ dehumanise their opponents and use words that ‘other’ their enemies is a wonderful example of the pot calling the kettle sooty! To Julia, Radical Muslims and anyone she thinks of as ‘Right’ are not human and must be silenced.

The two articles appear to have been written by a spoilt, privileged girl with no real experience of ever having to fight for anything in her pampered life, which on review is just about right. But then that begs another question! Why would the Institute for Strategic Dialogue employ such a nasty little shit? And this is where it gets really scary!


The Institute for Strategic Dialogue (could anyone come up with a more Orwellian name?) was set up by Baron Weidenfeld, another Austrian, and is now run by Sasha Havlicek. Officially, the Institute was set up to combat extremism and this is where the link to Quilliam starts to make sense.

The Institute For Strategic Dialogue talks to a lot of governments, over 15 in fact, but they are not so keen on ordinary people talking to each other.

The ISD are behind the 2017 Google.org innovation to counter ‘hate’ online. They are behind the Orwellian ‘Internet Citizens’ movement that fights ‘Fake News’, echo chambers and filter bubbles (whatever that means?).

The fact that this all happened just when Julia arrived in their overheated offices must , of course, be a coincidence and the additional fact that they enthusiastically use her particular form of ‘double speak’ is also a coincidence, I’m sure!


Given the profile and high level contacts of the Globalist actors involved in this tragedy, it would not be a stretch to suggest that Patreon’s latest putsch against its clients may largely be due to pressure from the global banking cartels to silence any voices raised against the destruction of our nation states from within and by the mass importation of Muslim immigrants.

It is evident that Brexit and President Trump’s election has deeply disturbed this nest of vipers.

In view of the above, it seems evident that Islam and Muslim immigration is the weapon that governments are using to destroy national identity and to justify the destruction of human freedom and dignity.

In many ways, Muslims are also the victims here! And, it is also obvious that Quilliam and ISD are the way that this attack is being promoted and coordinated.

What should concern all of us, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, is the fact that, in the process of using Islam as a weapon against both Muslim and non-Muslim alike, they are also destroying Islam and the lives of ordinary Muslims. This seems to be a point not many have considered. 

As powerful as they are, the Corporate Marxist Elites are a shy bunch and it is not often you get to look them in the eye. But looking into the cold shark-like eyes of Julia Ebner you get to see the face of ultimate tyranny and the death of human dignity.

Maybe it is time that Muslims and other ordinary people start worrying about our real enemies, because to Julia Ebner, and her Corporate Marxist Elite friends, we are all Kuffar now!



References and links:

Julia’s work:



Tommy’s video for Rebel Media: 

Douglas Murray’s excellent piece in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/oct/23/quilliam-islamic-fundamentalists-terrorism




The British people voted to leave the European Union mainly because they were worried about the mass importation of Muslim immigrants, but ‘Brexit’ and Islamic Immigration are just two symptoms of a sickness that has been at the heart of British culture for nearly a thousand years. From the Norman invasion to Tony Blair’s illegal wars in the Middle East, the British Elites have only ever had contempt for the people whose lives they hold, so carelessly, in their hands.


Nothing reveals that systemic contempt of the Global Elites more than the way the British mass media (The Fake News Industrial Complex) have dealt with the voices raised against the European Union and mass Islamic immigration.


On the one hand, people with a middle-class background and posh accents can say what they like but if, on the other hand, you are unfortunate enough to come from a working class background, if you speak up against the official narrative, you will be shouted down, slandered by the media, hounded by the police and subjected to state sponsored violence.

Mr Douglas Murray went to Eton college, is painfully middle-class and languidly gay. In many ways, he represents everything that was ‘great’ about the British. Before anything else, Douglas Murray is a ‘gentleman’ who is conspicuously confident in his inherent superiority.

Douglas Murray


In comparison, we have the man they call ‘Tommy Robinson’. He had the singular misfortune of being born in Luton and speaks with an estuary English accent that screams ‘Moron’ to most English ears. The fact that he is not a moron deters none of his detractors. The fact that he is possibly Britain’s bravest son is totally ignored.

Tommy robinson

In Douglas Murray’s world, the privileged world of the elites, there is very little chance of facing actual serious violence. When Jeremy Clarkson punched Piers Morgan he was neither prosecuted nor condemned by the media. If you are one of the elites with a capacity for violence you are just a romantic hero.

In the world that Tommy Robinson, and indeed most of us, inhabits there is often little choice but to defend yourself or those whom you love. Robinson is forever tagged as a ‘thug’ for defending himself.


Despite the difference in the worlds these two men inhabit, the elites judge Robinson, not as his peers, but as his masters.

The unholy trinity of the British Government, its police and mass media (its paramilitary wing and its ministry of propaganda respectively) have set themselves against Tommy Robinson and all those he represents.

Douglas Murray has made a career by being vocal opponent of Islam and Tommy Robinson has never said anything that Murray has not also said but Robinson is constantly harassed by the police and slandered by the media, Murray not at all.

When the media interviews Murray it is with respect but when Robinson is interviewed it is with contempt.

Piers morgan


Jayda Fransen is the deputy leader of Britain First and not someone I would invite to a dinner party but just before Christmas she was arrested by the British police as soon as her plane landed in Gatwick for what they call ‘Hate Crimes’. Her crime was to loudly express her opposition to the Islamisation of Britain and the way that Muslims rape gangs have been allowed to exploit vulnerable English girls. Both of those two claims have been previously made by Mr Murray.

Jayda Frensen

Before Tony and Cherie Blair subverted British Law, this would have been called ‘free speech’ but now expressing the wrong opinion will get you banged up at Christmas. Was Jayda uncouth and noisily common? Yes! Did she hurt anything more than someone’s feelings? No!


Nowhere is this contempt more openly displayed than in regards to Britexit, from Politico to the Guardian and from the BBC to the Evening Standard. The left wing elites are unanimous, ‘The British People are small, stupid and boring’. On television and in print, ordinary people are ridiculed and most of the vitriol is aimed at stupid white men. Lord Kerr of Kinlochard stated that the British are ‘Bloody Stupid‘, presumably he excluded himself from his own condemnation.

These swaggering elite cowards almost inevitably change their tone when they have to write about or interview one of the few elites who dare to swim against the politically correct current. Andrew Neil verily fauns over Douglas Murray but never lets the plebeian Robinson even finish a sentence.

That there is a class apartheid in Britain is a historical fact and now painfully evident but that begs the question: If the working class could find anew the dignity and discipline that was once their birth right would the elites relent? Would these privileged and pampered people abandon their prejudice?

I doubt it!

If that is the case, what recourse do the people have in the face of tyranny and oppression?

Let me know what you think in the comments.