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