Response to Cameron's October (2011) Immigration Speech

From: Dr Frank Ellis

To: Mr David Cameron, Prime Minister MP

Date: 12^th October 2011 A.D.

Re: The Prime Minister’s Speech on Immigration delivered to the Institute of Government 10^th October 2011

Dear Mr Cameron

Mass immigration is not a natural disaster akin to some tsunami, drought or earthquake that periodically and unpredictably overwhelms a country. Mass immigration is a purely man-made phenomenon which is encouraged openly or covertly by people who benefit from it economically or by people who for ideological reasons wish to see England looking like some failed Third-World state, Pakistan, for example.

Mass immigration, especially mass non-white immigration, poses real dangers for the future of England. The idea that England can survive the mass, continual influx of hundreds of thousands of non-white immigrants is hideously naïve. As the white indigenous people of England are relentlessly displaced by the rapid and aggressive breeding of non-whites, the whole texture and nature of our towns and cities will be changed forever, is already changing, and, in some places, Bradford, Birmingham, whole swathes of London, have already changed for the worse.

I do not regard these huge, unprecedented changes, changes which were imposed on the white indigenous English without any consultation or any regard for England’s future, with no regard for the links to our past and heritage, as in any way beneficial. In every possible regard they are disastrous. As I have made clear to you before the changes brought about by mass, non-white immigration represent the racial, cultural, physical and psychological dispossession of the white indigenous English.

In what way, pray tell, do the indigenous English, especially those left in London, benefit from having their capital, my capital, overrun with non-whites? The short answer is that they do not benefit from being overrun by non-whites. They suffer from overcrowding, reduced quality in public services, noise, freakish behaviour, poor education provision as a consequence of schools overrun with immigrants, exceptionally high levels of crime and corruption and high taxes to pay for foreigners. Moreover, they are daily bombarded with BBC and other state-sponsored propaganda that they should actually be grateful for all these non-white immigrants being here. Furthermore, should the white indigenous English protest about what is happening to their country, they will be vilified as something monstrous when in fact their opposition to being dispossessed is entirely rational and moral, in every way normal. What is not normal, what is perverse, what is most decidedly unnatural is that white politicians such as you Mr Cameron are actively encouraging hordes of non-whites currently resident in England, and others swarming across our borders, to overwhelm our country. Mass, non-white immigration has not delivered a single benefit at all to the white indigenous English.

Your portrayal of the immigration debate as one dominated by extremes is itself extreme (and wrong) and designed to show you as the conciliator, the moderate with sensible proposals when in fact you have a long record of colluding with those who have sponsored mass non-white immigration. Some form of immigration subject to exceptionally tough controls is acceptable but the numbers involved should be very small indeed and it should be made clear that employment in England does not in any way imply a right to permanent residence. There are absolutely no benefits to be derived from the mass influx of unemployable Third-World immigrants. One of the main problems, especially with regard to Indian and Pakistani immigrants is the reliability of any qualifications. In the NHS this can literally be a matter of life and death or lead to operations which are bungled because they are carried out by incompetents. Remember Daniel Ubani, the Nigerian with a German passport? Ever heard of the Indian, Manjit Bhamra?

One of the weak links in your immigration proposal is that you show no understanding of the race factor. Race and race differences matter and they cannot be made not to matter by government diktat. Nor can endless race relations laws and amendments deny the basic consequences of race and race differences. Large numbers of non-whites in a white country will always be a permanent source of tension and very often violence. We see the evidence for this all over the world. That for most of her history our England has been racially homogenous has been a great blessing. Racial diversity is a curse. As the number of non-whites increases, as it has done grotesquely over the last 30 years, so the racial, social and economic stresses become ever harder to hide or to deny. Blacks engaging in looting and rapine are just obvious and visible examples of how mass, non-white immigration has failed and how the white population bears the costs, economic, cultural and psychological.

Immigration is not just about the on-going immigrant threat to England it must also face the problem of those who have come here in large numbers and who have managed to secure a British passport. They have come here and wish to stay because they enjoy a standard of living in a First-World economy that would be impossible in Pakistan or Africa. If the numbers involved were exiguous and all further non-white immigration was almost impossible except for a highly-qualified and suitable few then all the legitimate fears and worries about immigration would disappear. That the rational, logical, healthy and morally reasonable fears of the white English indigenous people with regard to mass, non-white immigration show no sign whatsoever of abating is because the problems associated with mass, non-white immigration – crime, corruption, child abuse, depraved honour killings and forced marriages violence, physical dispossession and overcrowding/overpopulation – are getting worse. On these trends the English will be reduced to a racial minority in their own country some time in this century. Do you really want that outcome for your children Mr Cameron? Immigration policy must therefore deal with two problems: one immediate; the other long term.

The threat posed to England by mass, non-white immigration is largely a consequence of immigrants exploiting legal instruments which oblige us to accept them. The obvious first step is to rescind all legislation that prevents or hinders the expulsion of immigrants. Your view, Mr Cameron, that ‘Britain will always be open to those who are seeking asylum from persecution’ is an outrageous proposition and one that has done so much to make it possible for immigrants to enter England under false pretences. It leaves us permanently vulnerable to events in other parts of the world over which we have no control but which when they lead to political collapse mean that we are obliged to permit hordes of so-called asylum seekers (criminals and illegal immigrants) to enter England and “enrich” us. This is something that must change if we are to have any chance of saving England. Leaving the EU must also be a very high priority.

The immediate problem is to prevent all further immigration. It must be a matter of the highest priority to hunt down, round up and to deport all illegal immigrants. If they have assets these can be seized to cover the costs of deportation. The next step is make it clear to non-whites currently resident in this country, especially blacks, that they shall not be permitted to enjoy any special status merely because they are non-whites. If large numbers of blacks are incarcerated, having been subjected to the due process of English law then that must be seen as an indication of a black predisposition to commit crime not some insidious racist plot as in the Marxist slander of institutional racism. Again, black educational failure reflects low mean black IQ – well documented – not a white conspiracy. Blacks will have to learn to live with their limitations. Whites are not responsible for black failure and the psychological terror aimed at whites, often by other whites, to make white society feel guilty for black failure should be dismissed out of hand.

The next step is to recognise that the welfare state has created a massive parasitic underclass. People who refuse to provide services in return for welfare handouts should be denied any money at all and housed in government hostels where they will receive basic survival provision and no more. This means a bed, basic food and a roof. For those who show willing there will be firmness but fairness and maybe at times some warmth. Those that riot can expect ruthless counter measures to restore order and discipline. Respect, dignity, status, self-esteem, a sense of achievement cannot be donated by charity: they have to be earned. The only politician in England who grasps these facts of life is Frank Field, a very honourable and decent man.

Other measures some of which I noted earlier this year can also be taken. First, long term, every effort must be made to encourage large numbers of non-whites to return to their own countries. Generous financial benefits and inducements can be made to encourage repatriation. Second, under no circumstances must there ever be an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Third, under no circumstances will the creation of an independent Islamic/Muslim state ever be permitted within the territory of the United Kingdom. Fourth, the provisions of Sharia are grossly incompatible with the legal, political and cultural traditions of England and shall not be permitted. Fifth, family migration cannot be used as an excuse to bring relatives to this country. People who cannot bear to be separated from their families should not separate themselves from their wife (wives) in Pakistan. That these individuals are allegedly in search of a better life is an irrelevance, an emotional red herring, and imposes no obligation, moral or legal, on England to end this self-induced separation.

When you say - ‘immigration is not just about people coming to live here for a while. Some will want to settle and then join us as fellow British citizens…’- you ignore one very important consideration. Do I, as a white Englishman, want these people to join me? What happens when I emphatically do not want these people to join me? How can millions of non-white immigrants just ‘join me’? The answer is they cannot and they must not be encouraged to believe that they are welcome to ‘join us’. I do not want to have to endure the psychologically distressing sight of English cities overrun with immigrants. And it is not just the cities that face invasion. The next attack wave to hit white England, currently being planned by your government, is the calculated destruction and concreting of the countryside, including the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) and National Parks. The aim here is to impose thousands of non-white immigrants on areas which have so far escaped them. And when your party has managed to tear up the planning laws – not a perfect legal instrument by any means – and given the red light to rapacious developers, what will be the result? The result will be hundreds of thousands of shoddy, high-density, anti-social housing units in the countryside. For the first time there is now the real risk that mosques, hitherto confined to cities, will appear in the countryside. It is a truly dreadful thought. The long term problems will be racial tension, soaring council taxes, more crime, certainly more violent crime and Third-World squalor in England’s ancient shires. And when hordes of blacks imported to Ludlow, Ripon, and why not Witney, as part of government policy, start to engage in a bit of looting and violence, because that is what they do in the hood, the liberals will explain this degenerate behaviour as arising from a lack of opportunities for ‘young black people’ in a market town: the rioters were alienated and misunderstood; it’s not the fault of the ‘young black people’. The final result of permitting the developers to run riot and to build these shanty towns will be the destruction of a priceless asset.

So Mr Cameron: it really is time to stop the talking, posing, the endless consulting and act.

Yours sincerely

Frank Ellis

The Guide to Cameron's "Big Society"

On March 31 David Cameron unveiled his “Big Society” plan, listing a set of policies which he claims are designed to build a ‘Big Society’ based on responsibility and respect.

The very first of these is a proposal for “a neighbourhood army of 5,000 full-time, professional community organisers who will be trained with the skills they need to identify local community leaders, bring communities together, help people start their own neighbourhood groups, and give communities the help they need to take control and tackle their problems”, in relation to which he goes on to say:

“This plan is directly based on the successful community organising movement established by Saul Alinsky in the United States and has successfully trained generations of community organisers, including President Obama.”

It may be that the disingenuous Mr Cameron is attempting here to capitalise on the still widely held belief in Britain that Obama is a a successful and hugely popular American president. This might be a reasonable assumption, given that due to media censorship, although the British public are aware that Obama was swept to victory on a tilde of popularity and optimism in November 2008, very few are aware that, within months of taking office Obama's poll ratings were languishing amongst those of history's least popular presidents.

(Did anyone else notice the note of panic in the voice of Asian news reader Krishan Guru-Murthy, when Michael Heseltine alluded to that secret fact on last night's Channel 4 news?)

However, it remains rather bizarre that a European Conservative leader would pay such a fulsome tribute to a figure such as Saul Alinsky the author of “Rules for Radicals” considered my many to be a guidebook to modern communist revolution. Published in 1971, is a bible for many on the left and a significant tool in bringing about some of the worst aspects of our modern Orwellian society.

In the opening paragraph of Rules for Radicals Alinsky says: "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away"

He goes on to say:

Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so future less in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.

Does this sound familiar? Can you see how Alinsky's guidance has been applied within our own society to replace so much that was good with so much that is so damaging.

Elsewhere, Alinsky says 'Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It and Polarize It.' “It” of course is a human being, but, as we have seen, the disciples of Alinsky are skilled dehumanisers.

Speaking of Saul Alinsky a respected commentator and friend of mine said: “This man was an aggressive communist, one for whom there was no right or wrong, only power, there was no morality only the will to dominate others. He is an absolute horror when you view the way he wants to break down society, destroy the Church and families, etc. He followed the Gramsci line of thinking, rather than the Stalin brute force approach, and therefore avoided direct confrontations. But he was constantly fomenting divisions, creating a sense of grievance, class envy, us versus them attitudes, the sorts of things that absolutely wreck society he saw as very useful. He was a destroyer.”

When challenged, Alinsky denied that he was a communist, but his writings, and the manner in which they have been used belie that denial.

A writer calling themselves “Jessie James” in an article entitled “Know your enemy” published on Western Front America said: The long term goal of Saul Alinsky and the socialist revolutionaries is to openly overturn the traditional order of society by taking power from the “Haves” and giving it to the “Have- Nots” of the world.

This goal of radical redistribution of wealth and power is the only “constant” ideology that an Alinsky trained “community disorganizer” is taught to accept. That the ultimate implementation of this redistribution on a global level would destroy each and every advanced white western country is either not understood by the the mostly white middle class disciples of Alinsky or they are so twisted that they see our destruction as desirable and justified.

Alinsky wrote his Rules for Radicals in 1971 for the specific purpose of harnessing the unfocused chaotic discontent of the 1960’s youth rebellion into a long term tool for the destruction of the current American system from the inside out. His goal was to produce a generation of “Realistic Radicals” who would worm their way into our churches, our government, our schools, our businesses, our labor unions and our media.”

This may be written from a partisan perspective, however, it remains beyond question that Saul Alinsky was no friend either of the white race or of the forces of conservatism.

The fact that the leader of a major European conservative party would choose not only to heap praise on such a figure, but to formulate policies based on his teachings leaves one with a troubling sense of unease. Are Cameron and his party acting through stupidity and ignorance, or is their motivation significantly more sinister?

Is the Conservative leader a fool, or is he something very different to what he would have us believe? Let us hope that it is the former and not the latter.

__________
Hat Tip: Dr. D