Friday, 15 April 2011

An Open Letter to the Prime Minister, Mr David Cameron MP

From: Dr Frank Ellis
To: An Open Letter to the Prime Minister, Mr David Cameron MP
Date: 15th April 2011 A.D.
Re: The Prime Minister’s Speech on Immigration to Conservative Party Members in Hampshire, 14th April 2011

Dear Mr Cameron

Once again I am compelled to write to you on the subject of immigration and the related ills which are gnawing away at the fabric of British society and destroying us. Having read your speech, I can say that there are parts which show some awareness of the immigration threat, for example, the connection with the welfare state. Whether of course you act is another matter. The long-suffering, white indigenous population has heard the cry of “It’s time to get tough on immigration” so many times before and on each occasion nothing has happened. Once any election is out of the way the immigration assault on our way life continues its relentless path. Nothing is done to stop the invasion. Whole neighbourhoods are taken over by immigrants and we whites are supposed to pretend that we are being blessed when in fact we are being dispossessed.

You begin your speech by pointing out that last year we were in the middle of a general election campaign. The highlight of that election campaign directly pertains to your Hampshire speech. Let me refresh your memory. When Gordon Brown took part in a choreographed visit to Rochdale last year he, thinking his microphone was switched off, referred to a life-long Labour Party activist as a “bigot” because she had earlier complained about high levels of immigration to Britain. Brown’s grovelling after his remarks were broadcast did him no good at all. His cowardice and disgusting duplicity were there for all to see and hear. His private response to a perfectly honourable concern about mass immigration reveals not just his horrible, cynical dishonesty but the huge gulf that separates the professional political caste in this country from the electorate. It confirms my suspicion that you and your politician colleagues despise people like me and others who object to mass immigration. You despise us because we categorically reject your hideous multiracial fantasy; you hate us because we see through your lies; you seek to punish us and humiliate us because we resist the Lie; and you long for the day when we are overwhelmed by immigrants and reduced to a cowed racial minority in our ancient lands.

You note the following:

Now, immigration is a hugely emotive subject and it’s a debate too often in the past shaped by assertions rather than substantive arguments. We’ve all heard them. The assertion that mass immigration is unalloyed good and that controlling it is economic madness, the view that Britain is a soft touch and immigrants are out to take whatever they can get. I believe the role of politicians is to cut through the extremes of this debate and approach the subject sensibly and reasonably.

The reason that ‘immigration is a hugely emotive subject’ is because any attempt to criticize mass immigration has been portrayed by the political caste to which you belong, the BBC, the Guardian-reading classes, the universities and what is erroneously referred to as the teaching profession, as something too dreadful even to contemplate. The implicit, often quite explicit, assumption has been that any person who criticizes the level of immigration or who resents the changes that have been imposed on Britain without the consent of the indigenous population, is some kind of Nazi, hell bent on mass murder. Those of us who have attacked the insane levels of immigration have not just made assertions: we have offered compelling arguments to which the BBC, to take just one example, has responded with hysteria and vitriol. Your party has contributed to ‘the extremes of the debate’ by denying Conservative MPs the opportunity to resist. When Patrick Mercer pointed out, please note, pointed out, some obvious home truths about race and the British Army you removed his shadow defence portfolio in order to be able to grandstand and make a display of your commitment to “anti-racism”. William Hague accepted the findings of the viciously, anti-white, racist Macpherson Report without so much of a high-pitched squeak and attacked the East Yorkshire MP John Townend in the 2001 election campaign merely because Townend sympathised with the concerns of his constituents regarding mass immigration.

The filters of BBC censorship and of other monopoly stream media outlets through which anything to do with race, multiculturalism, immigration and crimes carried out by immigrants must pass before anything is broadcast or put in print mean that the grim truth is never fully placed in the public domain or only hinted at, as for example when the BBC reports violent black behaviour in London. You say that public debate was affected because public discussion was closed down and that: ‘It created the space for extremist parties to flourish, as they could tell people that mainstream politicians weren’t listening to their concerns or doing anything about them’. What are you trying to say here, Mr Cameron and what are you trying not to say, to acknowledge? So the last Labour government with the support of your party demonised any individual or individuals who pointed out the failures of multiculturalism. It was left to small parties such as the BNP and non-affiliated individuals to state that ‘mainstream politicians are not listening to your concerns or doing anything about them’ for the simple, painfully obvious reason, Mr Cameron, that mainstream politicians were not listening to our concerns or doing anything about them. In other words, Mr Cameron, when the silence of cowardly, careerist politicians was broken by some lone voices, you denigrate them as the mouth pieces of extremist parties whose arguments are not to be heard, even when these supposed extremist parties and individuals are telling the truth and articulating the justified fears of a large majority. And you expect me to trust you and your call for a sensible and reasonable debate on this subject? You want this debate to be on the basis of your ideological assumptions; primarily that multiculturalism and mass non-white immigration are inherently beneficial. Those who object are cast as ‘extremists’, as somehow incorrigibly wicked.

Again, you say that you want ‘to starve extremist parties of the oxygen of public anxiety they thrive on and extinguish them once and for all’. You acknowledge the public anxiety over the immigration issue so what exactly are these extremist parties doing or saying that is wrong and which warrants their being called ‘extremist’? If there is massive anxiety about immigration (more accurately fear, loathing and disgust), why does it exist? Who or what is to blame? The answer Mr Cameron is: cowardly and lying politicians x cowardly and lying politicians x cowardly and lying politicians = masses of cowardly and lying politicians. Ever since 1948 immigration has been an issue in Britain, punctuated by race riots and culminating in the Islamic terrorist attacks of Thursday 7th July 2005. Successive governments have tried to ram race-is-a fiction, we-are-the-world and multiculturalism down our throats and when we have retched and vomited this poison out of our bodies, politicians have then resorted to legal and administrative sanctions against us; they have indoctrinated our children to hate their country, its heroes, its past; they have turned children against their parents; they preach hatred of whites; they encourage immigrants to mock us and to take over our towns, cities and neighbourhoods; and our men returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are spat at and reviled by immigrants as war criminals. And in the UN-sponsored world view of multiculturalism which you seem to have totally internalised, we, the white indigenous population, are somehow reduced to the level of extremists because we have had enough of being lied to and because we resent our country being overrun by aliens.

You say that you want ‘to get the policy right: good immigration, not mass immigration’. To begin with you need to deal, as matter of national priority, with the vast numbers of illegal immigrants currently in the United Kingdom. There must be absolutely no amnesty. Your mission is straightforward: hunt them down, round them up and deport them. What stops you from acting? When the indigenous electorate actually sees wailing illegals being deported, along with all the wives and hordes of other dependents; when the indigenous electorate starts to see that its neighbourhoods are being reclaimed, you might merit some trust: but not before since your credit is exhausted.

As for what you call ‘good immigration’ you claim – politicians always do – that ‘Our country has benefitted immeasurably from immigration’. That is news to me. When I go through large parts of Britain – Bradford, Slough, Leicester, Birmingham, Leeds and whole swathes of London - I am assailed by sights and sounds that might be appropriate in the Third World but do not belong in England. Third World immigrants recreate the Third World in First World countries. When I go to large parts of England I do not wish to see masses of black and brown faces, bizarre clothing, hordes of immigrant children, freakish behaviour, to hear the invasive cacophony of non-European languages and to see whole streets that look as if they belong in Islamabad or Mogadishu. I do not feel enriched by “diversity” or multiculturalism. My reactions are fear, disgust and a horrible nausea. I am of course angry at people like you who have done nothing to prevent this from happening, even when warned of what would happen.

What are people from Uganda, India and Pakistan doing in large numbers in British hospitals? Britain is quiet capable of providing enough staff from the indigenous population. Our training is superior as well. The countries you mention are not exactly known for high standards and good training. The Indian examination system is corrupt and riddled with cheating such that fake degrees and other professional qualifications are easily obtainable at the right price. Pakistan is a Third World slum whose sole export to this country has been terrorism, welfare parasitism and immigrant invaders. Uganda is a sub-Saharan, Third World basket case. Do you really expect me to believe that any training such as it is in Uganda meets First World standards and that lives are not being put at risk by employing Africans?

The case of Daniel Ubani, the Nigerian with a German passport, is just one horrifying example of what can happen when First World standards are jettisoned in the name of multiculturalism and ‘good immigration’. One Primary Care Trust rejected Ubani because his command of English was so weak. Eventually he secured – somehow – a post and on his first day managed to kill one patient and nearly killed another. The chances are this Nigerian could not read or not very well and that he simply did not understand the correct doses of drugs required. Shortly thereafter he fled back to his ‘native’ Germany. The presence in small numbers of highly qualified immigrants form Europe in intellectually demanding jobs is not the problem (please note that Daniel Ubani is not European). However, if the numbers rose dramatically it would become a problem. The real problem is the mass influx of poorly or dubiously qualified or unqualified Indians, Pakistanis, sub-Saharan Africans, Somalis and Turks and others whose sole contribution is to overpopulate Britain and whose customs, religion and high levels of welfare dependency represent a massive drain on the public purse. When one takes into account the social, economic and displacement costs borne by the white indigenous population and the huge emotional and psychological stress inflicted on whites by the presence of large numbers of non-white aliens in their country, there are no substantial benefits at all from mass immigration, especially from India, Pakistan, Sub-Saharan Africa, Somalia and the Middle East. Mass, non-white immigration is a curse.

Your admission that the last government allowed the mass invasion of immigrants into Britain comes far too late: so much damage has already been done. Why did the Conservative Party not highlight this invasion when in opposition? You had every opportunity. Why during this period was it left to non-affiliated individuals and so-called extremists to highlight the dreadful consequences of mass, non-white immigration? By staying silent on the mass immigration invasion between 1997 and 2010 your party colluded with the Labour Party’s policy of allowing mass immigration. The Conservative Party therefore bears a great deal of responsibility for what has happened. Too many of your cowardly MPs who knew perfectly well what was happening, failed to stand up and be counted. This is why the Conservative Party can no longer be trusted on anything to do with immigration.

You say that ‘real communities aren’t just collections of public service users living in the same space’ and that ‘Real communities are bound by common experiences, forged by friendships and conversation, knitted together by all the rituals of the neighbourhood, from the school run to the chat down the pub. And these bonds can take time. So real integration takes time’.

When you say that ‘real communities aren’t just collections of public service users living in the same space’ whom exactly are you trying to deceive? Your point is so obvious (it has been recognised for a long time) and your reasons for stating it so patently insincere that I am at a loss to identify the target audience. This is just cynical and utterly insincere posturing on your part. The only community that matters Mr Cameron is the nation, in my case the English nation, not the fantasy multiracial communities which you have in mind. The common experiences of the English nation cannot be open to all.

You say that ‘real integration takes time’. In America they have been trying since 1865 and they have still failed. Large numbers of different racial groups in the same territory is a design for strife, violence, unhappiness, discord and the destruction of individual freedom. For how much longer are you and Trevor Phillips going to tell us that more time is needed so that integration can work or should I say be made to work at the expense of the white, indigenous population? Integration can never work because most of us have a healthy and wholesome sense of who we are and what we cannot be or become. The natural resistance we manifest frustrates the ambition of the diversophiles, so harsh and repressive legislation must be enacted so that opposition can be bullied and intimidated into silence. In opposition your party, Mr Cameron, raised no substantial objections to the recommendations of The Macpherson Report (1999), Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 and all the other rules and restrictions on intellectual freedom that the last Labour government sought to impose on the white, indigenous population. At every opportunity your party has connived and colluded with the Labour Party and the emissaries of the European Union in order to silence, to humiliate and to crush dissenters from multiracial orthodoxy. And now you plead for more time so that the hellish designs of multiracialism can be brought to fruition.

Our membership of the European Union is a huge obstacle to preventing and then reducing the levels of legal/illegal immigration. We are also extremely vulnerable to fraudulent claims submitted under various pieces of human rights laws and codes. All and any legislation which prevents us from deporting immigrants and imposing strict border controls must be rescinded.

You mention forced marriages yet I find no mention of Pakistan or other Third World states. In what sense are these girls who are forced into marriages by Pakistani immigrants ‘British’? They may have acquired a British passport but then as you have conceded they and their families cannot speak ‘the same language as those living there’ and do not want to integrate. By what measure can these people be properly considered to be British? I note that you say that these immigrants do not speak ‘the same language as those living there’. There is something evasive about this, a deliberate lack of clarity. You avoid saying that these immigrants are unable to speak English confining yourself to the fact that they are unable to speak ‘the same language as those living there’. Your failure to identify English as the critical language which these immigrants must learn leaves open the possibility that the language spoken by the people ‘living there’ might not be English but some language from the Indian sub-continent which the new batch of immigrants from, say, Somalia, cannot speak. This is yet another reason why multiracialism is so disastrous: it creates barriers and suspicion; it destroys any sense of community.

There is an insuperable problem for your multiracial utopia, or rather a series of problems that very few people will state publicly and that will bedevil your plans. I speak for myself here – so others may disagree with me – though I suspect that many people will share my views. You want openness. Here it is: I do not want to live in a community where I am confronted with hordes of black and brown faces on the streets of our towns and cities; I do not want to socialise with non-white immigrants; if by mistake I walked into a pub full of non-whites, I would leave immediately; I do not want to have to work with these people if it can be avoided; I avoid non-white immigrants at every possible opportunity (if dealing with them is unavoidable, I am polite no more no less); I do not want my children to have to endure the presence of huge numbers of non-white immigrants in their schools; I do not want to be preached to by diversity propagandists, telling me against all the evidence and the screams of my soul that diversity is some kind of blessing (it is nothing of the sort). Diversity is bestial, hateful and loathsome: it is a psychological weapon of war which has been deployed against the white peoples of the world in order to undermine their natural sense of racial and cultural separation, their identity, their natural and proper sense of superiority across the entire spectrum of human endeavour. Diversity is a collectivist refuge for the failure, the loser, the envious and the nation hater-killers.

God bless England, Ireland (both sides of the border), Scotland and Wales.

Yours sincerely

Frank Ellis


Dazza said...

This is brilliant, I urge everyone to link to it or forward it on

misterfox said...

I post these two videos of Andrew Brons on this speech as support for to Frank's article. Brons handles them very well, indeed.

Anonymous said...

Ecellent Dr Ellis, an outstanding critique of Cameron's opportunism.

I find the notion that the nation that created the most advanced and benevolent empire in human history can be "enriched" by races from retarded societies ridiculous. Such retarded societies have done next to nothing to advance themselves let alone the rest of humanity.

I hope call me Dave reads the letter and responds but as we know, the fop is a liar, parasite, hypocrite and a coward.


Celtic Warrior said...

Dr. Ellis you said everything I would want to say but my command of language doesn't allow me to say.
And thank you for including us who come from from south of the border, in your blessings.
Why don't you and more like you get into mainstream politics?

yorkshirebob said...

Frank, in 1969 we lived in Beeston, Leeds,(bomber territory).My wife and I were both born in Leeds. My next door neighbour asked me one day if I wanted to join him and his NF buddies petrol bombing Pakistany houses in Bradford. We were flabbergasted and thought it was a joke. Obviously we knew the background to all this as we had watched them colonise Bradford over the previous years, and paint their houses pink in Leeds, but we felt in the back of our minds that the government would sort things out if it got out of hand.
Thats 42 years ago.
Which person under 60 years of age could know what England was like in the late 40's and 50's. Thats the frightening thing. We left for South Africa in '73, but I tell you this, if I had known then how it would turn out, my response to my neighbour would have been very different.
Re. Sarah's blog Unity or Death, is there no way in which you or mister fox or Sarah or any of the superb people that blog on this website could act to gather the Nationalist group leaders together with the aim of creating one united umbrella body.

misterfox said...

Celtic Warrior and Yorkshire Bob, I am in complete agreement with you both and think we need to co-ordinate more. The bloggers are a small counter to mass media propaganda but very important.
I do think we need to form a strategy group and would do what I can to help.
There are talented writers working and people with leadership ability like and many highly qualified people with professional knowledge that we need like the barrister who stood in Birmingham for the last general election.
The problem is we are all working in isolation or have given up but I will keep making the suggestion till it catches on.

misterfox said...

Celtic Warrior and Yorkshire Bob, I am in complete agreement with you both and think we need to co-ordinate more. The bloggers are a small counter to mass media propaganda but very important.
I do think we need to form a strategy group and would do what I can to help.
There are talented writers working and people with leadership ability like and many highly qualified people with professional knowledge that we need like the barrister who stood in Birmingham for the last general election.
The problem is we are all working in isolation or have given up but I will keep making the suggestion till it catches on.
My worry about "unity" among the nationalist leaders is that too many have discredited themselves and the media would be able to stifle a new movement by using their past errors. We need to attract new blood.

RegThe Hedge said...

You see this the problem we have as nationalists. That speech was wonderful, rousing and inspiring. However, one sentence caused a shadow. The part right at the end where superiority is mentioned. We are proud of ourselves and we should be but unguarded diatribe gives our enemies fuel. Also the comment by Yorkshirebob above where he aludes to regreting his non participation in burning out 'pakis'. This comment would make the mouth of a white hating nazi UAF supporter salivate. Im sure this comment will appear on a UAF site somwhere. Despite the fact that it could easily have been posted by a UAF nazi.
Our tasks for the future are not to convince each other, it is to convince the lightweight or liberal nationalist. Inside every middle class voter is a lightweight nationalist. Their votes are just waiting to be harvested, first we must convince them nationalism in not based on prejudice. And nationalism is not, but scum like the UAF will use every dirty trick and misquote they can muster from the communist manifesto. Lets not help the bastards.

yorkshirebob said...

Foxy, exactly my point, some do discredit themselves. Having the local pub as their rendezvous point for the upcoming protest is not a good idea, but if the whole throng of nationalist organisations were coordinated, set standards to abide by or be reprimanded, led by articulate people with intellect who could formulate a code of discipline which must, under all circumstances, be adhered to. Then your on the right road------and Reg, I suppose in general I would agree with your comments. But don't you think that the British people have become TOO civilised and to some extent have lost their instincts for survival. Survival in the jungle, which lets face it is what England is becoming, leaves little room for etiquette and fear of the unknown. My comments to Mister Fox should be sufficient to answer your latter paragraph.

Anonymous said...

The challenge is to get the thoughts of intelligent nationalist's like Sarah and co off of the web and out into the real world.

The media's out but stall's in town centre's would be a good start with a national 'curriculum' sent weekly to activist's around our country so the message was uniform and shaped to address any current event. The first step is to create nationalist's then BNP voters. If we could awaken a sense of solidarity in our fellow white's we will win.

RegThe Hedge said...

I'm not sure of the need to organise outside of the BNP. The number of nationalistic bloggs that are popping up is fantastic and growing. They are very mich a cottage industry. The ones that provide articulate commentary on our cause are the ones people visit. The ones that don't disappear. They provide a type of leadership, opinion leaders. They also allow nationalists to share info and ideas. More importantly they provide hope. If they didn't exist many may think they are alone in their views.
The most important bloggs are the moderate ones because ferverent nationalists will always vote BNP so no time needs to be spent on persuasion there. For the engineer who has lost his job to an Indian immigrant or the Software developer who can't get a raise (to keep pace with inflation) because hundreds of thousands of Indians are ready to do his job. These are the people who will respond to sensible moderate nationalism. Finding a moderate blogg will often make such an individual into a BNP voter. People like this go searching when their cozy little world starts to become uncomfortable due to money problems. This is also the reason why the BNP mist make themselves a party with credable economic policies and I nelieve they have. It is just about getting the message out now and since the MSM have a blockage we must use adifferent route. Thankfully the MSM are slowly becoming irrelavent while alternative madia is growing. Our day is coming.

Celtic Warrior said...

Mr. Fox, wrote "I do think we need to form a strategy group and would do what I can to help." Include me in.
As I previously stated, Dr Ellis's letter said everything I would have wanted said and he did so without reverting to offensive or overly racist language. Now I don't want to sound PC, but I do believe that we can much better get the message across by leaving out of the discussion offensive words and terms which give those who disagree with us the weapon of referring to us as racists, bigots and Nazis.
I feel that we are in much stronger position if we keep pushing the arguments against immigration on the differences we have in our society, culture, and language and in religion as far Islam is concerned. Although not a practicing Christian, more of a cultural Christian, I recognize the major part played by Christianity in the formation of our culture and society.
It seems to me that the greatest and most immediate problem facing Britain is immigration from Islamic countries. Where we have friends of strong Christian belief, we should gain their support when we stress the potential danger that Islamic immigration poses to Christianity. By stressing the Christian aspects of our culture, we should gain some sympathy from the Christian churches. I don’t think the RCs need too much convincing on this matter.
But again I stress, we have to watch our use of language. I believe that terms like African/s, Sub-Sahara Afriacn/s, and Third World or developing world are not usually seen as derogatory.
As for Dr. Ellis’s objection to those who obtain a British passport being called British, this can be countered by referring to ourselves the true Anglo Celtic British peoples as “Britons”, which we originally were until the Romans left Britannia. The great thing about this term is that it can also include those from south of the border, as it is not a politically recognized term.

yorkshirebob said...

--and Reg, with all due respect,do not put words in my mouth. I said 'my response would be very different' which did not mean violence. I am against violence of any nature but I believe that if we do not show a united Nationalist front to stop or severely limit immigration, the demonstrations which we are seeing up and down the country will spill over as the police will not be able to contain them.

RegThe Hedge said...

I am delighted to read your post confirming your true meaning. I am sorry if you took offence as I didn't mean to give any.

yorkshirebob said...

Thanks Reg, and I also apologise for giving the wrong impression.Cheers for now.

Laager said...

@ Celtic Warrior

Christianity does not preclude anyone from becoming a Christian

Instead of relying on Christians to fight the battle for you become a Christian and lead from the front

@ Reg & Y'Rob

Study the precedent in South Africa - a country of minorities where the smallest English/British minority imposed their will on the collective majority.

The Boere left the Cape to escape British oppression and established their republics of Transvaal and Orange Free State. They had no desire to rule black Africans

The British followed the Boere and conquered them in order to gain control of their diamond and gold wealth. Along the way they conquered the black tribes as well.

The British created the Union of South Africa in 1910 - a unitary multi-culti state that ruled 9 different black tribes, an Asian community, a Mixed-race/Coloured/Mulatto (e.g. President Obama) community, the White African Boere/Afrikaners and the White African English/British

In 1948 the Afrikaner Nationalists came to power and organised South Africa to conform to their republic model - i.e. creating separate territories where each ethnic group could pursue their self determination - just like the UK with Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

They inherited a plethora of racist laws started in 1806 in the British colonies of Cape and Natal. This status quo was called Apartheid. (Ref:

The rest of the world via The United Nations objected to the full evolution of these policies and branded it:
"A Crime Against Humanity"

In 1994 a majority rule (where each black tribe is as different from each other as a Frenchman is to a German) multi culti state was forced on white South Africans by the liberal west.

Since "freedom" with a murder rate of 50/day about 320,000 South Africans have perished in this utopia. Within that figure are about 40,000 whites. This includes 3,000+ farmers and family who have been brutally slaughtered. (Ref. www,

What goes around comes around.
The UK is now at it's own multi-culti crossroads, created and encouraged by the likes of Michael Portillo who see merit in this artificial diversity.

The genie is now out of the bottle.
The BNP has warned that in about 2050 white Britains will wake up to discover that they are a minority in the land of their birth. The BNP has been villified as racists-nazis-facists etc by the minority liberal left media. An Oxford academic recently published a paper saying exactly the same thing.

NOT A PEEP in the media from the left.

It will be interesting to see how and if Celtic Brits can turn this situation around.

Once again look at the South African experience.
In 1900 there were 1m whites and 3m blacks in what became the Union.
In 1990 there were 5m whites and 35 m blacks
This black population explosion was created by white goodwill: a health service; a stable nutritious food supply that eliminated famine; a police force that kept the warring tribes apart, education and an emerging industrial cash economy which provided access to all western benefits.
Within this process all ethnic groups were encouraged to retain their own identities and NOT integrate.
The United Nations called this A Crime Against Humanity.

David Cameron refers to maintaining good. immigration.
Does he mean only white Caucasion Christians, and/or dispossessed Rhodesian/Zimbabwean farmers who's fathers fought alongside the Brits in WWII to save them from being overrun by the Nazis?

Wherever Enoch Powell is right now I bet he is saying; "I told you so"

David Cameron's speech is really an attempt to save the centrerist political parties in UK. The full extent of the population's discontent with immigration has been revealed to him and they are now trying to contain it. It is too little too late.

Do you have any proposals on how you intend to claim back the UK you want?

yorkshirebob said...

Howzit,Laager. A pretty accurate concise history lesson and I wouldn't want to nit- pick it. No, other than what I have already suggested i.e. forming a unified Nationalist disciplined front, I cannot think of anything at this stage. As I said, I think it will take decades to turn around and no doubt more ideas will spring up along the way, as long as the momentum is maintained.I believe that there is a groundswell of 'p---ed off' Brits who need to be given the right leadership to bring them out of their 'cocoons',if you like.
Whites are in disarray ,both here in SA and in the UK ,and in both cases because of disunity.

Celtic Warrior said...

Laager said;

"Instead of relying on Christians to fight the battle for you become a Christian and lead from the front".

Christianity and I had a parting of the ways, when as a young man I couldn’t accept been told that I would spend eternity in hellfire. It was a cruel and abusive practice imposed by men with no knowledge of the real world, except from a book that allowed men to enslave others, and stoning people to death for not keeping the Sabbath.

Having already had one of these backward desert religions imposed upon us for almost 2000 years, I don’t want another desert religion, more backward than the previous one, brought into Western Europe again. The last one created enough problems for Europe.

Anyhow I don’t believe I indicated that I wanted Christians to fight my fight for me. Rather more a case of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. And I'm more than willing to rally to the colours.

Laager said...

@ Celtic Warrior

Back in the 50s and 60s down in Africa we were also presented with the fire and brimstone version of Christianity which did not win my heart or mind

In the 70s I returned to the Church to discover a paradigm shift had taken place.
The message was all about everlasting love, forgiveness and eternal life after death - much more palatable.
No more feelings of guilt
Simply repent and you are free

Call in to a church of your choice and check it out

Celtic Warrior said...

Sorry Laager, but can we please have less of the proselytizing, I’m quite happy to accept you for what you are. Let’s get back to my original point and find the means of preventing the takeover of our homelands by another backward desert religion. Secularists, like myself, are concerned by such a scenario and I would have thought that we would have had common cause with Christians on this matter, without us having to readopt that monstrous evil that is the old testament.

Ironical really when you consider, that sensible men and women surely do not want another monstrously evil book forced upon them on pain of death, which I understand is likely to happen during this century. At least Christianity had the good sense to have a reformation and dumped some of its more evil aspects. Pity though that they couldn’t also dump the old testament, which is little different from the later book of another backward desert tribe, which threatens to engulf our culture and society.

Laager said...

@ Celtic Warrior

"Let’s get back to my original point and find the means of preventing the takeover of our homelands by another backward desert religion."

Thats fine by me.
"You" (i.e Celtic Britons) with your history of Empire have a wealth of experience to draw on.
Just choose one territory that you conquered, ruled, "gave" independence to and then departed from leaving a smouldering shambles behind from which to draw your solutions, and then apply them to the UK.

A few that come to mind:
Diego Garcia

Don't delude yourself that you have plenty of time.
Predictions are that you will be a minority in the land of your birth in about 40 years time

Then what?

misterfox said...

I'm afraid that this bare-faced liar and con man has already gone back on is statement.

Celtic Warrior said...

Laager said
"Don't delude yourself that you have plenty of time. Predictions are that you will be a minority in the land of your birth in about 40 years time".
Agreed, and this is generally what Dr Ellis was warning about in his letter to Cameron. And as we now see, Cameron has already backtracked on his claims to reduce immigration to 80s levels.
However I am contrary on your other statement concerning "leaving a smouldering shambles behind".
How about the U.S.A., Canada, Australia and New Zealand? Probably the most successful societies in the world. Also, how about Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia? Definitely not failures. And I wouldn't call India a failure. Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Middle East a definite yes. But why, possibly because they follow a backward, medieval and monotheistic religion.
All the other failures are mainly African countries, which failed only when European expertise withdrew after independence.
What threatens us now, is the inability of our political elite to face up to the reality of immigration, especially by those who wish to impose their alien and backward religion/political system upon us.
Those who try to force and justify immigration and multiculturalism on us by saying that we are already a nation of immigrants who came from many sources, know very little of our true history as revealed by recent DNA studies. As a people isolated on an archipelago of islands we are probably the most homogeneous of all peoples. The research shows that no one in the Celtic/British Isles has less than 59% of the DNA we inherited from our ancient ancestors who arrived in these isles over 14 thousand years ago and 30% of our DNA from our Northwest European ancestors who arrived about 7 thousand years ago. The remaining 11% is made up from the Vikings, Anglo Saxons and Normans, who arrived on our shores not more than 1500 years ago. Despite 400 years of Roman occupation, their input to our gene pool is probably no more than the British added to the Indian gene pool.

Laager said...


"However I am contrary on your other statement concerning "leaving a smouldering shambles behind".

I am referring to race relations

Could you explain to me why the world, via the United Nations, was so opposed to the Homelands policy of the National Party in South Africa? Under the British these areas were previously known as Native Reserves which the National Party first changed to Bantustans and then Homelands

In the British Crown Colonies of Northern and Southern Rhodesia the same thing existed and they were called Tribal Trust Territories.

In the USA and Canada the European immigrants consigned the indigenous inhabitants to Reservations

I'm not up to speed with Australia and New Zealand but certainly in Australia the Aboriginals have territories reserved exclusively for them to reside in.

I don't know enough about Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong to comment but I do know that the British in Malta excluded the Maltese from using certain beaches within Malta. My Maltese mother-in-law is still deeply offended by this action today.

And then of course we have the festering sore right in the UK's back yard - Northern Ireland. Why do they refuse to return this conquered territory to the Irish? They did so in Africa - Uganda, Kenya etc. What exactly is the problem here?

So we have all these different ethnic groups assigned to their own territories around the world. Without re-patriating or going to war with the immigrant minorities it looks like the UK may have to go down the same route: e.g. East Yorkshire reserved for Pakistanis

And what about London?
A newspaper article a few years ago identified 300 different languages living in community neighbourhoods that they had claimed for themselves - e.g. Brixton

Celtic Warrior said...

Laager, I no longer wish to continue a discourse where we are constantly bombarded by recent Southern African politics. As far as I am concerned they should be allowed to continue and sink back into the “smoldering shambles” you mentioned.
Can we not please get back to Dr. Ellis’s point concerning our current problem, the failure of our politicians, and I expand this to include English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish politicians, North and South (was it Ian Paisley who announced “better a Kenyan than a Fenian”), who have let us down by allowing unfettered immigration into our homelands in the last four decades. And more specifically discuss the question, how are we going to rescue ourselves from the curse of multiculturalism.
What is so wrong with our culture that we need to adopt other alien cultures? Our Anglo/Celtic culture gave us great literature and prose from the likes of Chaucer, Shakespeare and Milton, great scientists and inventors like Newton, Faraday, Kelvin and Watt, and great leaders like Wellington, Nelson and Churchill. Our culture also gave the world such modern wonders as the steam engine, railways, steam turbine, gas turbine (jet engine), jet aircraft, telephone, television, computers, penicillin, IVF and many many others too numerous to mention.
The list is endless and I defy anybody to produce a similar list from any of the cultures that have and are being imposed upon us, the indigenous Britons. The Arab culture did once produce great science and literature but has not been so prolific since adopting its backward and medieval religion/political system 1400 years ago. African culture has produced little, if anything, that can be said to be of value. I suppose that we can grant India the dubious honour of having expanded our cuisine to include chicken tikka masala. I note that my spell-check rejects the words tikka and masala.
I cannot understand what we are expected to gain from the cultures of immigrant societies that come from failed or failing states or non democratic states, led by brutal dictatorships or both, and surely all a result of their own culture. Do we really want such cultures absorbed into ours?
So Laager, can I respectfully ask you to adhere to the point in question and contribute your other remarks to some other more suitable thread. I’m unsure if Sarah will agree with my sentiments on this.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

I do tend to agree with Celtic Warrior that this thread has rather wandered off topic, and I would ask that contributors address the points made by Dr. Ellis in his open letter.

There will no doubt shortly be another posting addressing South Africa where the situation there can be discussed.

yorkshirebob said...

Dr Ellis is a very courageous man and deserves support. Re. The few previous blogs and in order to placate all concerned, how about taking a leaf out of the South African book and compiling a British Freedom Charter.The points raised by Dr Ellis could be incorporated in it and numerous others. Imagine the force this would have if it could be emblazoned on the EDL banners at demo,s and ideally adopted by all the Nationalist org's. Just a thought.

Laager said...

@ CW & Sarah

I agree with all the points you make CW:

"What is so wrong with our culture that we need to adopt other alien cultures? Our Anglo/Celtic culture gave us --------- and many many others too numerous to mention.

The list is endless and I defy anybody to produce a similar list from any of the cultures that have and are being imposed upon us, the indigenous Britons."


However, colonial expansion has been an intrinsic part of this process of growth and development which cannot be ignored - however distasteful you may find it. This process involved the domination of many societies around around the world by the one whose praises you sing.

In the South(ern) African situation (Rhodesias and South Africa) the two largest descendent communities of this civilisation on the African continent did their utmost to retain and protect these values, copied institutions and infrastructural development.

They were at a multi-culti coal face (in fact had been there for 340 years) and knew what the consequences of a fully integrated society would be - particularly once political power was transferred.

However with the support of Britain (at the time not aware of the immigrant explosion it was facing) white (mainly ex-Anglo) Rhodesians and later South Africans were coerced into accepting a multi-culti society to conform to prevailing European norms. They were assured that there was nothing to fear and that all would be well in the long run.

Well 40 years (Rhodesia) and 20 years (South Africa) down the track we see that the white populations in these countries were right all along and that they have now been consigned to being second class citizens in the lands of their birth.

To reiterate:
The UK is now at its own multi-culti crossroads just like Rhodesia and South Africa.
The genie is out of the bottle.
The enemy you fear is within.

How do you contain the growth rate of the, at present, minority groups?

Stop all immigration from non-caucasian Christian countries?
Forced repatriation?
You can bet your bottom dollar voluntary repatriation will not work.
Forced sterilisation?
Forbid the wearing of the burka? (France)
No more Mosque building (Switzerland & The Netherlands)
Only permit Christian and Jewish faith schools?

If it is any consolation to you, besides David Cameron's statement on the failure of integration/multi-culturism, the premiers of France and Germany have made similar statements. Attitudes are changing in Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and the Netherlands and their regulations are being amended. The Foreign Affairs minister in Italy is described as "hard line" by some UK commentators, for incarcerating illegal immigrants from Africa in detention centres and then re-patriating them - as Col Gaddaffi was doing in Libya on behalf of Europe.

However this is small comfort to the white minority communities in Southern Africa who now face a daily violent confrontation with a the black majority in a system imposed on them by know-it-all Europeans.

These self same Europeans are now crying "Foul!" as the same situation unfolds in their midst.

Will they apologise to the white caucasian Africans for what they have done to them? I doubt it.

I not surprised that you no longer wish to engage in this aspect of the debate and maintain that it is off topic.It was a tactic witnessed countless times from down under as the truth was presented to the Europeans who had other agendas to follow.

You now have the Southern African precedent to follow and can learn from it. I wish you well in your endeavours to influence your politicians to turn things around. Without resorting to some seriously forceful measures I just don't see how it will be accomplished.

Celtic Warrior said...

All right Laager, you win, I give up.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Thanks Laager

You have made your point very clearly, however, I will not be able to approve any further comments about South Africa on this thread.

Dr Ellis wrote to Cameron about immigration into the UK, and that is what we should be talking about.


Laager said...

@CW & Sarah

Points taken Gentlemen

With Britain now at the the very same coal face I'm following the Cameron pronouncements and reaction from the electorate with great interest.

I'm still of the opinion that his real concern about the issue is to curtail the growth of parties like UKIP and the BNP and ensure the survival of the Tories

Quite frankly I do not think that he has any solutions. What exactly is "good immigration"?
It is just smoke and mirrors to keep the voters quiet whilst they wait for some miraculous solution to be pulled out of the Coalition top hat.

At present the majority of voters in the UK do not want to be associated with the BNP and are starting to force the other main stream parties to take a position on the issue. It will be interesting to see how they dress up their solutions. Whilst it is unlikely that the BNP will ever gain power they are fulfilling a very valuable catalytic role in finally forcing the mainstream parties to address the immigration issue and act on it