Frank Ledwidge, Losing Small Wars: British Military Failure in Iraq and Afghanistan

Frank Ledwidge, Losing Small Wars: British Military Failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 2011, viii + pp.267, Notes, bibliography, Index, ISBN 978-0-300-16671-2

I consider it to be the duty of anyone who sees a flaw in the plan not to hesitate to say so

General Einsenhower immediately before General Montgomery’s briefing for Operation Overlord, 15^th May 1944

© Frank Ellis 2012 All Rights Reserved

Anger and shame assailed me when I was reading Losing Small Wars: anger with a corrupt Prime Minister (Blair) for the lies used to justify the deployment of British forces to Iraq and Afghanistan and the professional collusion of senior officers and the security services in the dissemination of the lies; and shame for the untold misery inflicted on Iraqi and Afghan civilians, the deaths and maiming of our soldiers and the lies used to comfort their families and to mislead the public. As if this was not bad enough, we are confronted at every turn in these badly judged deployments with far too many examples of incompetent political and military leadership in theatre. With all these failings and the scale of the invasion and occupation in Iraq, and the NATO mission in Afghanistan, Ledwidge’s title hardly does justice to what is revealed. In any case these are hardly ‘small wars’: the lying alone was and remains even now on a mass industrial scale.

If, having read Losing Small Wars, I had to identify the single most important failing about the disastrous British interventions in Iraq and, currently Afghanistan, it would be the failure on the part of the British government and its military advisers to spell out quite clearly why the British armed forces were ever deployed to these two parts of the Middle East. Factor out the obvious lies disseminated by Blair and his political-military clique that Iraq was armed with weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that these weapons posed a threat to Britain and there was no justified reason for Britain’s ever having had anything to do with the US-led invasion of Iraq. Bush’s ravings that Saddam Hussein was another Hitler reflect the appalling ignorance of American presidents about the world. Such claims were intended to provide some weak justification for Saddam Hussein’s removal from power. Nevertheless they are pitiful claims. By the standards of Arab leaders Saddam Hussein was averagely repressive. Oil is a factor on the Middle East but did it require that the US and others invade Iraq and inflict such dreadful misery and suffering? If we went there to impose democracy and other Western abstractions then that too has been a catastrophic failure and one that was bound to be in a part of the world where Islam rules. Why do Americans and their too willing British allies not realise that the liberal democracies that evolved in a small part of northern Europe among small groups of racially homogenous peoples cannot be just imposed on what are Third World tribal societies? Here we see a deadly serious failure of imagination, caused by what Pat Buchanan has correctly identified as democratic fundamentalism and which has been made to appear fallaciously plausible by the malevolent ideology of multiculturalism and neo-conservatism.

As for the British Army’s being in Afghanistan, no British politician has yet provided a convincing argument for the deployment. Brown’s claims that British troops in Afghanistan made the UK safer were obvious lies and so obviously clumsy one wonders why he thought he could get away with peddling such nonsense. Equally mendacious are the claims that UK forces are helping the Afghan population to build a better future. Do the Taliban – they are part of the Afghan population – want our help? How do we help people by laying their country waste and imposing utterly alien institutions such as elections and education and undermining the foundations of a tribal society? Other possible reasons for our being there may be related to Iran’s nuclear ambitions and fears about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons (and oil, of course). But even these are not that convincing when trying to find an explanation for why Britain has expended so much blood and treasure. Remove any geo-political considerations and one is left with the interests and rivalries of the three services. Ledwidge refers to remarks made by General Dannatt to a British diplomat that if the British army, with an exit date from Iraq established, did not redeploy its battle groups to Afghanistan, they would be removed in any Strategic Defence Review. Ledwidge also suggests that the British army wanted to go to Helmand to show what it could do and attempt to compensate for its less than glorious performance in southern Iraq. Another factor prompting the deployment was, as always, a desire on the part of senior British politicians and officers to ingratiate themselves with the Americans, to try to rebuild their damaged stock. 

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING 

The Sovietising of the West

A forward to The Macpherson Report: “Anti-Racist” Hysteria and the Sovietization of the United Kingdom by Dr Frank Ellis

By Sarah Maid of Albion

Bernard Hogan-Howe the newly appointed state apparatchik in charge of the London Metropolitan police assures us that “racists” will be “driven out of the police”, whilst revealing that 10 officers are currently under investigation of suspicion of the most heinous thought crime of our age.

Last week, writing in the London Evening Standard, former deputy editor of the Independent and sometime speech writer for Prime Minister David Cameron, Ian Birrell snarled that racist policemen should be “rooted out”, “prosecuted” and “lose their precious pensions”.  Indeed Mr Birrell addressed his subject which such furious, staring eyed, zealotry, that one suspects only fear of exposure prevented him from adding that they should then be transported to some gulag in a remote part of Wales or the Scottish highlands for forced re-education and recreational rock breaking.

Meanwhile a young man still languishes in prison for the offence of sending an ideologically incorrect tweet, whilst the one time captain of the England soccer team, John Terry, awaits prosecution for allegedly calling a black footballer black, Terry has already been stripped of his captaincy, showing when it comes to “racism” an accusation alone is deemed grounds for punishment, whether guilty or not.  

Elsewhere, a young mother is on bail after some informer turned her in via the internet when he expressed an objection to the forced invasion of her homeland.

We are regaled with shocking accounts of racially insensitive words, thoughts and deeds. Nightly ernest young reporters appear on our televisions, usually standing outside courts, police stations or football fields reporting on some politically incorrect quip as if it were equivalent to the napalm  bombing of a hospice.   (Which they probably think it is equivalent to)

Across the Atlantic in America, news channels such as CNN, or “we are Treyvon” as they have probably re-branded themselves by now, have taken to reporting an almost Lewis Carroll style alternative reality where a man’s colour and ethnicity can be changed at the will of a metanarrative (For example Hispanics and Cherokee Indians can suddenly morph into evil white men just to suit an agenda). Meanwhile alleged victims are transformed into angelic twelve year old versions of themselves. All this parallel universe chicanery is performed in an effort to “root out” the very same legendary (white) racist who are being hunted down by Commissioner Hogan-Howe and Ian Birrell over here.

At the same time hugely popular writers and commentators such Pat Buchanan or John Derbyshire who dare to speak truths which must not be spoken are summarily dismissed, pilloried and their livelihoods destroyed.

Of course, we have seen this all before in other times and in other places, where ideological offenders and thought criminals were subjected to show trials and highly publicised prosecutions, then they were called enemies of the state now they are held up as evil, hate fuelled enemies of the multicultural fantasy which has become the obsession of the state. 

Now as then thought criminals must be purged from our institutions and positions of trust, broken, punished and forced to confess and beg a forgiveness, which is seldom if ever granted  

Now as then victims are judged to be offenders and punished for the crimes committed against them. Now, just like then, fake realities are created to act both as parables of the new religion and as truncheons with which the state can batter its terrorised population into acquiescence.

Just as then we are required to pay lip service to an orthodoxy which we do not agree with, which frightens us and which we know to be flawed, and only dare speak our true thoughts to our most trusted friends in hushed tones, and in private.

As happened then, abject failures held together only by state terrorism are presented by an obedient and craven state media as glorious successes, which fool only those who wish to be fooled, but which few, if any, dare challenge.

What we are seeing, in effect is the Sovietisation of the West.

The Sovietisation of the United Kingdom was the subject with Dr Frank Ellis, then a lecturer at Leeds University, before the university attempted but failed to purge him for expressing his disobedient views, addressed in 2001 following the release of that most Stalinist and  Orwellian of documents The Macpherson report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

In his outstanding analysis of the report, Frank Ellis exposed the agenda driven fanaticism and false reality which influenced the Macpherson inquiry and its recommendations. and detailed how its purported attempts to combat racism were in reality an outright, and so far successful, attack the existing British society, its native people and our culture.

As Frank Ellis says: “The near unanimous acceptance of its [the report's] assumptions and conclusions by the Labour government represents a major victory for those who are striving to undermine long-established British institutions and accomplish the final destruction of the United Kingdom “

When explaining the process of Sovietisation of which the Macpherson report is part, Dr Ellis describes the fate of the Kulaks, the middle class Russian peasants who Stalin sought to exterminate, and who, as a result, died in their millions.  On reading this I then suggested that we the white race were being set up as the Kulaks of the 21st Century, and Frank told me that Jared Taylor of American Renaissance had also reached that exact same conclusion.

I leave it to you to make your own assessment.

Now eleven years on, it is striking quite how relevant Frank’s analysis of the Macpherson report remains today , and how many of Frank’s predictions have come to pass.  Frank’s review of this poisonous document is a very important and valuable resource, which I urge you all to reread and which I hope Nationalist bloggers will link to.

Because of this I have given it pride of place as the first article I have added to a new site which I have set up for Frank’s writings, which can be visited by clicking on the link below:

Click here for: The Macpherson Report: “Anti-Racism” Hysteria and the Sovietization  the United Kingdom by Dr Frank Ellis

 

Frank Ellis's reply to Norman Tebbitt

Anyone who read ex-Tory minister's article in yesterday's Telegraph "The Euro is nothing but a sacred cow its time to take it to the abattoir" may have seen The comment from Dr. Frank Ellis, who as you all know is a regular contributor to this blog.

If you missed it, Frank Ellis's excellent contribution was as follows:

Dear Lord Tebbit

 

You are quite correct to point out that the EU and its all vile works constitute an article of faith for the BBC and the Guardian-reading classes. But there is another sacred cow that requires to be put to death in the slaughterhouse (not abattoir!) or rather sent for scrap and that is the anti-racist industrial complex. The campaign to eradicate what the left and members of your party call racism has poisoned and blighted England. Today, with the conviction of two defendants in the Lawrence case we were given another reminder of the damage done. Murder is not made more heinous because of a racial motive: murder is murder.

 

Your party when in opposition in 1999 and led by Hague the room sharer accepted the Macpherson Report and its vicious recommendations in their entirety. When is some politician in your party going to stand up and attack the Nazi-anti-Nazis in the BBC, the universities and especially in the hideous EHRC which hates whites?  You mention Enoch Powell. No Tory MP today would be fit to run errands for such an outstanding English patriot. Your party has betrayed England: and all your tough talk about the euro cannot hide the cowardice or the damage being done, already done and with more to come. With luck the euro will collapse and we can start to rebuild.

 

But the deadly threat to England is not the euro it is multiracialism, mass non-white immigration and a political caste (“Conservative” & Labour) that have conspired to permit England to be overrun with aliens. This is the dagger that will tear England’s heart out and you by repeatedly pulling your punches on mass, non-white immigration and attacking the BNP so as to provide yourself with an insurance policy and to deflect accusations of racism, have made your contribution to this state of affairs. I hope you can live with yourself. I used to admire you Tebbit: now you disgust me.

 

Frank Ellis (aka Frankly Hellish)

Letter to the Home Secretary regarding Emma West

From: Dr Frank Ellis
To: Theresa May, Home Secretary
Re: The Arrest of Miss Emma West
Date: 2nd December 2011

Dear Home Secretary

I am writing to you to protest the outrageous arrest of Miss Emma West on a charge of allegedly racially abusing Poles and various non-white immigrants. I have to say that I found the video very distressing. It was yet another reminder of the kind of changes that immigrants have inflicted on England. To live in the south-east of England, to have to endure day in and day out the unwelcome presence of millions of non-white immigrants must eventually exact its toll on a member of the white indigenous population. Close and unavoidable contact with blacks is psychologically stressful, culturally repellent, disorientating and often very dangerous. There are no advantages whatsoever, just problems.

There comes a time when a person just cannot take any more. Every day on the BBC and the other monopoly stream media people are told that diversity is a wonderful gift; that immigrants enrich us and so on, ad nauseam. The reality is somewhat different. Immigration is destroying our country and in the process people like Emma West and millions of other white people are being racially, culturally and physically dispossessed and turned into a cowed minority in their own country. Emma West had enough: she speaks for millions of white people.

I cannot see anything in the video that would justify her being arrested. I conclude therefore that the arrest of Emma West was motivated by political expediency and maliciousness. The aim of her arrest was to cow other whites into silence so that they will not speak out against what is happening to England.

Jeremy Hardy (BBC) demands that people who voted for the BNP be executed; Cameron incites hatred and violence towards Nick Griffin MEP by publicly referring to him as ‘a ghastly piece of filth’ and Clarkson says that public sector workers should be executed in front of their families. Clarkson was only being ‘silly’. Is that what Cameron said? And what happens when a young mother speaks for England? You send the useless police, the same cowards who were too frightened to deal with black immigrant rioters in August, to arrest her. Meanwhile the immigrants keep swarming into England, pushing us aside, mocking us and living off the wealth of another nation. And if an Englishwoman protests in language that might be inappropriate in a university seminar (unless you are black and from the hood of course) but summarises the problem in brutally plain English, she is treated as if she is a monster.

Emma West has a son. Her son has been stolen from her. If he suffers any harm from paedophiles, perverts, blacks who hate whites, immigrant doctors who can just about walk and talk - not necessarily decent English - at the same time, you will be responsible. Emma West must be released immediately, reunited with her family and left in peace. Then you can give the order to expel the immigrants. I want my England, my Motherland back. Get on with it.

Frank Ellis

Archbishop John Sentamu’s Misconceptions about the Nature of Western Economies

© Frank Ellis 2011

John Sentamu’s article in the Yorkshire Pos (online 5th November 2011) in which he attacks the inequalities of wealth generated by an economic system largely based on the private ownership of the means of production reveals him to be a woefully ignorant commentator, and one who fails to grasp the reasons for the West’s astonishing intellectual and economic achievements. The substance of Sentamu’s article, such as it is, also confirms the sharp decline in the intellectual core of the Church of England’s leadership.

Social, intellectual and economic inequalities that arise from hard work, self-discipline and superior IQ are everywhere to be seen. They are a natural state whereby those endowed with such qualities will rise in social status, if they so wish, and to whom the benefits of wealth will accrue. Nature provides no evidence that all men were created equal or that all men will achieve the same things and reach the same goals. In what is still a largely white country, though mass, non-white immigration is set to reduce whites to a minority in their own country, black failure in education, employment and high levels of representation in crime, confirm that the qualities required for even modest levels of success are largely absent among blacks resident in Britain. Is it this, I wonder, that serves to fuel Sentamu’s resentment of England?  Does his apparent concern for the well-being of lower-paid workers mask a racist resentment of conspicuously successful whites?  Bear in mind that Sentamu was one of those fellow-travelling, useful idiots who lent his name to the viciously anti-white racist Macpherson Report (1999). Macpherson, Sentamu and all the others involved in the preparation of this hate tract, which had very little to do with a bungled murder inquiry and everything to do with attacking and undermining the institutions of a white nation, bear a large share of the responsibility for the degenerate behaviour of blacks that struck English cities in August 2011.

It does not occur to Sentamu that companies and businesses are founded by ambitious and private individuals whose intention is to create a successful business not a charity. Some of these companies generate huge wealth and their products have immeasurably improved the living standards of millions of people. They exist to make money and profit so that they can meet the demands of investors and so that they can reinvest capital to make more products. A privately owned company that is conspicuously profitable and handsomely rewards its shareholders and Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) will generate envy and resentment, especially among those who regard themselves as the intellectual and moral arbiters of our society.  Privately run companies do not have to answer to the outpourings of Sentamu’s poisonous envy presented as concern for the less economically successful.

Sentamu concludes that in those instances in a company where CEOs are paid 300 times more than the least well paid employees  - no company is actually cited by Sentamu – that this tells these employees ‘that they are of little value’. It tells employees no such thing. However much he might like to enjoy the same salary and benefits of the CEO the security guard knows that he is incapable of running a major company. If he is convinced that he is as good as his master he can start a business and prove it. Otherwise he must earn his living as an employee. Where large numbers of people come together, as in the workplace, inequalities between and among individuals will be apparent. No employee works to improve the position of others (or of starving Somalis and Kenyans). He strives towards his own ends and from this basic fact of human nature arises, inevitably and desirably, economic and social inequalities and the economic and intellectual progress associated therewith.

Sentamu tells us that: ‘Top pay has been found to bear little or no relation to company performance, but even if it did, isn’t the performance of a company dependent on the work and well-being of all its staff?’ It is obvious that the performance of a company depends, in part, on the work and well-being of employees. Sentamu implies without any evidence that when the gap between senior personnel and junior personnel is large or very large that the morale and well-being of junior staff in some unspecified way suffers. I suggest it does not. It is the nature of envy to which Sentamu implicitly appeals that differences in pay and privileges are most painfully felt among workers and staff of comparable levels. The worker on the factory-floor does not envy the stratospheric pay of the CEO: he envies the slight increase in pay which his more able fellow worker enjoys by virtue of his better and more efficient work rate and ethic. That difference may only be small but it gnaws away at the less well remunerated worker’s sense of self-esteem. This is why unions attract mediocrities who wish to see all the stupid, the able, the lazy and industrious held to the same standard. None must be permitted to shine since this will make the bad and stupid workers confront their inadequacies.

Companies that pay top staff high salaries regardless of results are not necessarily wasting money. CEOs have a symbolic, propagandistic function that companies use to promote themselves. This is especially the case where senior appointments are not made on merit but on considerations of equal opportunities and affirmative action which is then used by the company to trumpet its commitment to racial and sex diversity. Such appointees will be very well paid for doing very little. They are simply window dressing and public relations puppets. Moreover, paying the CEO a vast salary which may or may not be related to his performance signals the power and status of the company itself: it is a message of corporate dominance and power. There is no difference at all between a wealthy individual donating millions of dollars to feed the starving, AIDS-ridden hordes of Africa and a top-listed company paying a CEO a large salary. Both are gestures of power and status designed to impress. 

Sentamu worries about the effects of high levels of CEO pay on the morale of lower paid employees. He should ask himself what it must be like for a high-IQ and capable white employee in a top-rated Western company to be passed over for promotion in favour of a low-IQ incompetent black, all done in the name of the false god of diversity. Moreover, if Sentamu is indeed concerned by the lack of any link between pay for CEOs and performance he might like to consider the beam in his own eye. Where, pray tell, is the link between the performance of the Church of England’s leadership, its CEOs, as it were, and the salaries, fringe benefits and pensions that Rowan Williams and Sentamu enjoy? It is quite clear to me, sinner and lover of money that I am that the Church of England has succumbed to heresy. The Church of England openly promotes homosexuality and the ordination of women priests. It does not accept the teachings of Christ and has, on so many indicators, succumbed to the Satanic creed of “do what thou will shall be the whole of the law”. When the Church of England teaches that there are no privileged perspectives it destroys its own authority. If there are no privileged perspectives then sin cannot be condemned, the sinners cannot be punished; there is nothing to worry about when Christians are persecuted by all those nice Muslims or when Muslims try to establish no-go areas in England. Why should any Englishman accept anything said in the name of the Church of England when the church itself rejects Holy Scripture and openly colludes with its enemies and the enemies of England?
Again, and given Sentamu’s concern for what he considers to be the high pay enjoyed by CEOs, I find it strange that he has nothing to say about the grotesque mismatch between the rates of pay enjoyed by senior figures in the public sector and their generally shoddy performance: university vice-chancellors are overpaid bureaucrats and have inflicted long-term damage on their institutions by permitting reckless expansion; social services consistently fail to protect little boys and girls from sub-human perverts and the violently retarded; those charged with securing our borders let criminals and illegal immigrants come and go at their will; and the police are too frightened to act against non-white criminals; NHS hospitals resemble death camps where the old, weak and vulnerable are subjected to selections based on indifference, where they are abused, starved, mocked, dehydrated and, where, far too often, they are exposed to the not so tender mercies of Third Worlders masquerading as doctors and nurses. Local government is yet another example of public sector incompetence. The monopoly enjoyed by local government means that these bodies can impose confiscatory and rapacious levels of council tax regardless of their sub-standard performance and, of course, these councils pay themselves all kinds of bonuses for meeting spurious government targets.  If thousands of welfare parasites and immigrants who live on the backs of others live in a particular local authority there is very little chance that those in work and who pay for the flat-screen televisions and trainers coveted by the feckless can change this state of affairs through the ballot box: parasites simply outnumber the responsible hosts; indigenous whites – who supposedly do not exist - have effectively been disenfranchised by immigration. One of the worst examples of overpaid public employees is the BBC. As a body funded by a license fee, a viewing tax, and one that can levy a tax even if you do not watch the BBC, there is an exceptionally powerful case for mandating that the full salary, privileges, pension provisions and any other benefits enjoyed by its senior personnel be published in full every year. Were the BBC a privately funded entity there would be no grounds for such disclosure.

Sentamu’s exploitation of poverty to attack successful companies is the standard method used by Marxist agitators and those who are determined to ignore human nature. People who choose not to eat properly, who smoke, who consider a subscription to satellite television to be an essential item of expenditure rather than proper clothing for their children, women who have child after child to different fathers, who buy expensive consumer trash on a credit card, do not live in poverty: they are stupid, feckless and incompetent. They know that no matter how depraved and reckless their behaviour that welfare payments paid by people in work will secure them a roof over their heads and the misguided sympathy from people like Sentamu. The person who is quite able to survive on a modest income but cannot afford a Mercedes or a long-haul holiday is not poor. It is not a matter of any moral, social or religious concern that that he must do without high-status and conspicuous consumption which others can afford. Third-World immigrants who have entered Britain and who exploit the welfare generosity of this country are not poor. In this country they enjoy a standard of living which would be impossible in the failed Third-World states whence they come. This is why they come here of course. Sentamu, an African, is well aware of this state of affairs.  Rather than attacking British companies he should turn his attention to the race war being waged by his fellow Africans against whites in South Africa. Why does the Church of England remain so silent about this genocide by stealthy instalments?

In a still relatively free country, such as England, inequalities of income and social status are inevitable and desirable. Those who have the talents to succeed have a good chance of succeeding. This is why Sentamu hates the Western free market economies since it rewards some and ignores others, highlighting these innate differences. In this world opportunities are never equal and never can be. People who are differentiated by innately superior and inferior levels of intelligence, knowledge and the all-important work ethic will not produce the same outcomes. The more conditions are rendered equal the greater the role played by innate factors. Social mobility cannot be open to all since not all will be able to exploit the available opportunities. Those that can enjoy greater socio-economic status will achieve the rewards which go with such status. Divisions by class and status are normal. If Sentamu wishes to remove these differentiated outcomes he must be party to the destruction of a society which rewards individual achievement.

Sentamu’s vision of a more caring and equal society is one of compulsory equality and even higher levels of taxation to support an ever growing welfare parasite class. I take it for granted that Sentamu’s hideous vision for my country means that immigration controls shall be formally abolished so that millions more indigent and unemployable Africans can overwhelm us. Naturally the indigenous population shall be expected to care for these immigrants and make them feel needed and place them on an equal footing with the English. If we English do make theme feel welcome then obviously we are somehow evil, racist and so on, (→ ∞).

Sentamu states that: ‘Great wealth has for so long been seen as a mark of status’ and that we have to change this state of affairs.  To this end, Sentamu proposes two changes. First, those who in his words ‘who have already rewarded themselves most handsomely’ would not be acknowledged in the Queen’s Honours List. Second, he suggest that in order to put a stop to tax avoidance people should be encouraged to tick a box on their tax returns indicating that they have no objection to having the amount they have paid in tax made public.

Sentamu’s first proposal confirms his pitiful understanding of wealth and wealth creation. Wealth creation is inextricably linked to innovation and technological success. It is right and proper that we recognise and reward innovation. Why should a highly successful inventor – there are no highly successful inventors in Uganda – who makes vast sums of money be excluded from being honoured by my Queen? The second proposal has nothing to do with tax avoidance (Sentamu does not seem to grasp the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion) and everything to do with arousing envy and resentment against those who are successful. Were Sentamu’s proposals to be taken seriously they would lead to a society in which all innovation would cease, or all the innovators would be driven away, and one which would regress to social and economic stagnation and thence to decline. The green pus of envy, the resentment of the successful, which is the hallmark of the social leveller, oozes from Sentamu’s proposals. Sentamu should begin his quest inside the institution that employs him. If he is so concerned about the connection between wealth and status what does he propose to do to reduce the wealth of the Church of England and its drive to maintain its undeserved status, a status based on its loyalty to England which it has now cast aside? Sentamu, the Ugandan, should bear in mind that the Church of England is a Church of England and a Church for England. The Church of England was not intended to minister to the spiritual needs, whatever they are, of the Third World. In any case, Africans prefer sangomas, muti, killing albinos and cannibalism. If that suits them, fine. Just stay in Africa where they and their mumbo-jumbo belong.

Instead of berating his white hosts for their success and wealth, I suggest that Sentamu returns to his native Africa and preaches the gospel of wealth creation to his fellow Africans instructing them that it is a sin to live as international-aid parasites on the donations of the white man. Africans must learn to stand alone or perish. Sentamu should also lecture his fellow Africans that they must put a stop to their selfish and destructive breeding otherwise they will all starve to death. The time will come when even the white man’s agricultural prowess will not be able to feed the billions of clamouring, voracious, black mouths never mind the seething masses of India, Pakistan, China, Central and South America. Sentamu should also start to lecture Mugabe and his fellow Marxist savages, Mandela et al, that dispossessing and murdering successful white farmers is not a very smart move in a continent threatened by the spectre of mass starvation.


Frank Ellis, 13th November 2011

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

"Dead Men Risen" a review by Dr. Frank Ellis

 Toby Harnden, Dead Men Risen: The Welsh Guards and the Real Story of Britain’s War in Afghanistan, Quercus, London, 2011, xxviii + pp.512, Notes, Bibliography, Maps, Index, ISBN 978 1 84916 421 4

But the man who can most truly be accounted brave is he who best knows the meaning of what is sweet in life and of what is terrible, and then goes out undeterred to meet what is to come.

Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War

© Frank Ellis 2011

Dead Men Risen covers the tour of duty of the Welsh Guards in Afghanistan between April – October 2009. In the introduction Harnden points out that his manuscript was subjected to pre-publication review by the Ministry of Defence (MoD). Though parts of the book are blacked out, it is clear that a major consideration for the MoD was the prevention of any leakage into the public domain whatsoever of information pertaining to operational security, and, above all, to the electronic counter measures adopted by the British Army to neutralise Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). No author can complain about that.

In any case, the MoD censors inflict no damage on the book. Dead Men Risen is clearly written and the author pulls no punches about human weakness, fear, psychological collapse, life and death in the Welsh Guards. The book also abounds in inspirational examples of pure courage and leadership and that priceless staple of any good regiment: humour. Interwoven with the personalities and characters of the Welsh Guards are detailed accounts of the many distinct and specific phases of counter-insurgency operations in Helmand: mine clearing, often very slow because of the need to use prodders to detect IEDs with low or no metal content; patrolling; the use of air power; the devastating effect of British snipers; and the dangers of resupply convoys. It was during one such convoy that the Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Colonel Rupert Thorneloe MBE, was killed when his vehicle, travelling along the edge of the Shamalan Canal, detonated an IED.

The truly shocking revelations of Dead Men Risen are not to be found in the seemingly endless lists of casualties, killed and wounded, and families shattered forever but in the fact that the men and officers of the Welsh Guards - and the same must be true of other regiments as well - have been sent to fight a campaign without sufficient amounts of the proper equipment (the lack of helicopter support is obscene). This is the ‘real story’ and the blame rests squarely with the malevolent, greasy and mendacious do-goodery of Blair, his successors, and senior military officers who grossly, even grotesquely, underestimated the difficulties of any such campaign. Harnden provides other examples of poor and sloppy planning: a naval commander giving a briefing about language requirements was not even aware that the main language in Helmand was Pashto not Dari; and the detailed planning documents for Operation Panther’s Claw contained no proper terrain analysis of the road alongside the Shamalan Canal.

Far worse, in my opinion, since it exerts a paralysing effect on command and control, is the intellectual and moral confusion that informs the British effort. This has undoubtedly led to large numbers of British soldiers being killed, wounded and maimed for no obviously good cause. For example, central to the propaganda that justifies the British mission in Afghanistan is the assertion that the security of what is nominally still the United Kingdom depends on the presence of British troops. This assertion is endlessly made without clear evidence to support it. The absence of any convincing arguments for the presence of British troops in Afghanistan is compelling evidence against the need for their presence. One obvious response to this deception – so obvious in fact that it has been missed - is to point out that British troops in Afghanistan are part of a NATO deployment not an exclusively British one. Canadian, Danish, Australian, Estonian, German and American troops are not fighting and dying in Afghanistan in order to prevent Islamic terrorists - militants in BBC-speak - from murdering the white indigenous population in the United Kingdom.

In the first instance, security in the United Kingdom mandates the following measures: an immediate end to all Muslim immigration; the hunting down, rounding up and deportation of all illegal immigrants; strict entry and exit controls involving racial and cultural profiling; the closing down of mosques with any involvement in terrorism; those persons found to have had any involvement with terrorism are to be stripped of their British passports and deported. None of these measures requires risking British lives in Afghanistan. Nor are worries over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, Iran’s nuclear ambitions or oil good reasons for our being in Afghanistan. If Cameron thinks they are, spell it out and make the case. Men who are being sent to risk their lives are entitled to know the truth. Taxpayers would like to know the truth as well.

Dead Men Risen provides clear evidence that the same kind of dangerously sentimental and intellectually incoherent assumptions underpinning multiculturalism in the West are being applied to Afghanistan. Major Rob Gallimore who was responsible for training the Afghan National Army (ANA) found himself agonizing over the fate of some Taliban IED layers caught by soldiers of the ANA with whom he was working. All the evidence is that the captured Taliban were subjected to Afghan justice by their captors (three were summarily executed). In Britain and in the USA it is a staple of multicultural propaganda that cultural and racial diversity are strengths; that no one culture is ‘better’ than another. Yet here we have a Welsh Guards officer agonizing about the attitudes and practice of ANA justice. One cannot claim, as Western multiculturalists do, that Western notions of the rule of law enjoy no special status; that they merely represent one way of seeing and dispensing justice and then assert that the execution of Taliban terrorist insurgents by members of the ANA is not right. If, as xenophiles claim, no one culture or view of the world is better than another, fine, let us demonstrate our commitment to diversity in justice by supporting ANA/Taliban standards of justice. If we are too squeamish to fire the control shot then our ANA colleagues can do the necessary and dirty work on our behalf and we can wash our hands with rainbow-coloured soap and look the other way.

A wilful refusal to face up to the profoundly different nature of the social structure is also evident. Fundamental to Pashtuns is Pashtunwali (the way of the Pashtun): renegades must be offered safety and protection; hospitality must be offered at all times; and an affront must be avenged. Even among tribal opponents and enemies the code is honoured. How can a people such as the Pashtuns whose primary loyalty is to other Pashtuns ever be expected to support abstract notions of liberal democracy and the rule of law imposed by outsiders? Western-style elections might as well be from Mars. Worse still, as Harnden notes: ‘In 1980, the American anthropologist Richard Scott identified 25 different tribal groups in Nad-e Ali district alone. This made it all but impossible for Soviet and later British and American troops to understand the local dynamics’ (DMR, p.34).

The outcome of the presidential elections in 2009, totally undermined by corruption, was another brutal reminder of the cultural and psychological divide separating Afghanistan from its NATO occupiers. That 3,400 voted in the Welsh Guards Battle Group Area out of a total of 50,000 eligible to vote can only be seen as a victory for Taliban intimidation. It is all well and good claiming a victory because the polling stations remained open but if those eligible to vote did not vote out of fear of Taliban retribution this is a victory for the Taliban not NATO. Peter Galbraith, a UN representative in Afghanistan, realised that the corrupt election was a disaster, ‘a foreseeable train wreck’ (DMR, p.448) and a massive propaganda victory for the Taliban.

Much of the confusion of British policy, often with deadly consequences for its practitioners, arises from what purports to be new insights into waging counter insurgency, so-called ‘courageous restraint’ (or as I would rename it ‘negligent incomprehensible restraint’). Even the Commanding Officer of the Welsh Guards seems to have succumbed. To quote Harnden: ‘Thorneloe had told his company commanders that “killing 20 Taliban cannot bring us victory but killing one local national can bring us defeat” ’(DMR, p.204). I admire Lieutenant Colonel Thorneloe but I am compelled to disagree with him since I regard his assertion as deeply flawed. Killing 20 Taliban who are attacking a patrol base will assuredly not bring victory in Afghanistan but it would be a highly desirable outcome for the NATO soldiers under attack. High concentrations of NATO troops armed with all kinds of weaponry and supported by fast air and gunships mean that the death of local nationals is guaranteed at some stage. If killing one local national can bring defeat, a rather strange claim in any case, and one that lacks any empirical support, then the logical outcome is to cease all military operations and not use any weapons at all in order to avert this possibility. Moreover, the failure to use NATO technology to kill the Taliban for fear of bringing about this supposed catastrophic outcome will not pass unnoticed by the Taliban. It will embolden them. Fear of killing local nationals – note the implicit Western assumption that all life is precious an assumption demonstrably rejected by the Taliban – can only exert a paralyzing effect on the conduct of military operations.

In fact it is also a clear psychological victory for the Taliban who, having perceived NATO’s aversion to risking civilian casualties (for whatever reasons), have successfully exploited it for military ends. Compelling your enemy (NATO) not to use his superior weapons because you know that he thinks all life is precious and is worried by adverse propaganda is an astonishing victory, a brilliant example of insurgent judo. In the calculus of counter-insurgency killing one has to reckon with civilian deaths. They are unavoidable; they may even be necessary as a demonstration of ruthlessness. In every counterinsurgency campaign, despite the propaganda for domestic audiences there is an acceptable range of killing. These killing parameters cannot be determined in Western capitals but are determined by the specific circumstances of each insurgency. Those waging a counterinsurgency cannot be bound by limitations on killing set by the squeamishness of politicians and domestic audiences. Publicly they must state and disseminate doctrines such as ‘hearts and mind’ or ‘courageous restraint’ in order to propitiate politicians and human rights’ activists but hiding behind the doctrine they must pursue the extermination of the enemy, his accomplices, those who provide him with succour, with all necessary measures. Displays of one’s commitment to the rights of man might well earn the plaudits of the Guardian but they will earn the contempt of your Taliban enemy who has been bred to respect ruthlessness. Pity is the real enemy: so stamp on the viper when you cannot be seen.

At the heart of every infantryman’s training is the will to kill. Weakening the will to kill by appeals to ‘courageous restraint’ puts our soldiers’ lives at risk: it blunts their healthy desire to kill people, the enemy. Lance-Sergeant Peek exemplifies the will to kill and regrets that he never had the chance to stick a bayonet in some Taliban insurgent: ‘You have to be willing to put that bayonet in a place where it’s not going to be pretty for him’ (DMR, p.151). Good for you. How does a platoon commander explain to his men that the battalion’s snipers were not permitted to kill the Taliban IED team after an IED has ripped the legs off from two young men clearing a road? The sole conclusion that can be drawn from this reluctance to kill the enemy is that our soldiers’ lives do not matter; that in the grand scheme they are expendable. Harnden has picked this up as well: ‘The guardsmen had begun to fear they were viewed as expendable IED fodder’ (DMR, p.219).

The thoughts of the American commander, General McChrystal, confirm the doctrine’s essential incoherence and reckless disregard for the lives of NATO soldiers:

‘Charlie [acting Lieutenant Colonel Antelme, appointed after Thorneloe’s death FE] got it absolutely right with courageous restraint,’ McChrystal says. ‘You don’t need to be secured away from the people. You need to be secured by the people so that, as you win their support, it’s in their interests to secure you, to report IEDs. But it does take courageous restraint, it takes them understanding that you’re willing to take some risk to not put them at risk’ […] ‘If we respond with overwhelming fire to limited small arms fire from a compound we do protect ourselves but we destroy their livelihood and potentially the people. When we run around in armoured vehicles or personal armour we often send an unintended message that we’re more important than the people’ (DMR, pp.417-418).

A population - the people - that oscillates between support for the Taliban and support for NATO cannot be trusted. You surely need to be secured from the people or at least insulated from them such that the lives of your men are not exposed to needless risk (local nationals who engage in intelligence gathering activities while pretending friendship and cooperation pose a serious threat). Responsibility for security cannot rely on a fickle people who are clearly subject to Taliban intimidation: responsibility for security rests first and foremost with NATO commanders. Judgements about what constitutes ‘overwhelming fire’ and ‘limited small arms fire from a compound’ cannot be made at a distance; they have to be made on the ground. Surely NATO troops are more important than the people. Why should any soldier expect his commander to put the interests of ‘the people’ before him? It may well be that McChrystal’s incoherent doctrine is simply a propaganda ploy designed for domestic audiences in the West, yet it is not an inspiring message for some 19-year old Welsh Guardsman.

I salute the Welsh Guards and especially Lieutenant Colonel Thorneloe, an officer who embodied physical and moral courage. His decision to place himself in a position of great danger so as to inspire his soldiers was a truly magnificent example of leadership. This was a man above other men. I would have followed him anywhere. Dead Men Risen also reminds us that war is the widow maker, the cruel beast that works with indefatigable and dark purpose. Any woman who marries a soldier must reckon with the possibility that her husband will not come home. Even so, that knock on the door is a terrible blow; almost a second killing. When a good man dies, his soul is cleansed by the tears of a good woman. She has waited, now she is broken-hearted and alone, she must soldier on. So spare a thought for the women keeping home and hearth together, the mothers, the wives and the girl friends: God bless them.

Response to Cameron's Statement to the House of Commons

 

By: Frank Ellis

The Full Text of a Speech Delivered by Dr Frank Ellis to a Conservative Party Association in North Yorkshire in which he responds, among other things, to the Loss of Direction in the Conservative Party and the Failure of the Prime Minister, David Cameron, MP, to address the root Causes of the Urban Rioting and Rapine in his Address to the House of Commons on 11th August 2011.

__________

Ladies and Gentlemen!

Just after the first wave of urban savagery hit parts of London, I was contacted by a member of your Conservative Party Association with the request that I address an audience consisting of Conservative Party members. The individual who contacted me had read some of my earlier material on the themes of multiculturalism and the race problem in England. He told me that my views were very much in line with many of his fellow Conservative Party Association members and he asked me whether I would agree to address the problem and why there was such a huge divide between the parliamentary Conservative Party and the rank and file on questions of race, immigration and black crime.

The fact that this meeting is taking place in a large, beautiful, farm building rather than in the accommodation of your local association bears witness to the fact that the Conservative Party has indeed lost its way; that it has become a party divorced from its rank and file members; a party which colludes in the destruction of the United Kingdom and above all England.  If the Conservative Party led by David Cameron still believed in the primacy of the English nation and stood in awe of the freedoms which we have wrought for ourselves over the centuries, the organiser of this meeting would not have been obliged to ask a farmer for the use of this building. We would have convened in the local party offices or some other official venue.

But we do not live in normal times. So determined is the leadership of the Conservative Party to impose the alien cult of multiculturalism on the indigenous people – that is people like you and me by the way – and to purge the Conservative Party of all dissenters that all opposition is silenced, mocked and demonised. In 2011, any member of the parliamentary Conservative Party who stood up and publicly, loudly, rationally and truthfully attacked the insane levels of immigration, the anti-white cult of multiculturalism and the profound threat to this country posed by the massive shift in non-white population levels would be deselected and abandoned. So Conservative Party Members of Parliament tremble in cowardly silence fearful of losing their jobs. They know as well as I do what is happening and say nothing. They watch even as their Motherland is defiled and abused, treated like a whore. Even worse, some of them believe in the cult. Members of the parliamentary Conservative Party who remain silent in the face of the threat to our country have effectively abandoned their posts in the presence of the enemy. So it falls to others to speak out. I am of the English blood; I am a Norman bastard; I shall speak out.

The great, Russian writer and patriot Alexander Solzhenitsyn warned us that man must not live by the Lie. What is true for a man is true for a nation.  Let me spell out the brutal truth: multiculturalism is slowly and remorselessly destroying England. In fact the tempo of destruction may actually be increasing. Unchecked, mass legal/illegal immigration continues its deadly work, tearing our society apart; Marxists and multiculturalists continue unchallenged to spread their poison in our schools and universities; and non-white demography threatens completely to overwhelm us. Even in the aftermath of the urban rioting and rapine which blighted London and other cities David Cameron cannot bring himself to acknowledge that race and mass non-white immigration are some of the primary aggravating factors, in some ways they are the sole factors in this mayhem.

At every possible opportunity, from start to finish, David Cameron obfuscates, evades and denies the aggravating part played by race in his address to the House of Commons on 11th August 2011. He tells us that the trouble began when the police shot dead a one Mark Duggan. Why should the fact that the police shot dead this person be connected with the violence that followed?  David Cameron tells us that opportunist gangs exploited Duggan’s death; that ‘The police faced lawbreaking on the streets on a scale not seen for decades’: and all because one person is shot dead by the police? And is there any connection between this latest bout of murderous mayhem and previous ones? Is there a common denominator whereof David Cameron remains silent? I detect the obvious lie, the obvious attempt to deceive the public – not the House of Commons, its members know the truth – when David Cameron tells us that there are ‘deeper problems that have led such a hard core of young people to decide to carry out such appalling criminality’. The problems do not have deep causes they have just been buried too deeply for too long and ignored for too long.  Periodically they erupt. This is the latest – and I can assure you not the last – eruption.

Crime, David Cameron insists, has ‘a context’. In this context the problem of race cannot be ignored. David Cameron says that: ‘This is not about poverty, it’s about culture. A culture that glorifies violence, shows disrespect to authority, and says everything about rights and nothing about responsibilities. In too many cases, the parents of these children – if they are still around – don’t care where their children are or who they are with, let along what they are doing’ While this is an accurate portrait of the underclass per se it is especially accurate with regard to the black underclass. Violent street crime in London – shootings and stabbings – is essentially a black problem and we did not need the latest bout of murder and mayhem to tell us that. If David Cameron disputes this then I ask him to provide specific details of the people who ‘earn money through crime, particularly drugs and are bound together by an imposed loyalty to an authoritarian gang leader’ and who ‘blighted life on their estates with gang on gang murders ands unprovoked attacks on innocent bystanders’.

Endless commissions and inquiries are not needed to tell us the causes. The causes are painfully clear. Very large numbers of unemployed and unemployable blacks are the root cause of the riots and the overwhelming cause of violence on the streets of London. They rioted and engaged in rapine for obvious reasons. They want material goods for which they are not prepared to work so rioting is exploited in order to steal these goods. It is irrelevant to say that indigenous whites were also involved. Blacks were massively overrepresented among the, how should I put it, ‘rioting and looting community’. Had such large numbers of blacks not been present, or had the bulk of the rioters and thieves been white, the police would have cracked down much harder and sooner.

The reason the police did not react swiftly and ruthlessly to such large-scale and widespread manifestations of black, ghetto-style savagery was because the perpetrators were black not white. This is the bitter legacy of the poisonous Macpherson Report (1999). The climate of touchie-feelie, so-called ‘culturally-sensitive’ policing merely emboldens the black mob. Behind the black mob stand black councillors and other officials ever ready to scream racism. The inhibiting effects exercised by these accusations or the threat thereof have, again, been clear for some time. The Macpherson Report and everything associated with it are part of the ‘phoney human rights concerns’ that David Cameron clams will not be permitted to get in the way. So I call on David Cameron publicly to denounce the Macpherson Report and its works.

Mass, non-white immigration has been a catastrophe for England and the worst is yet to come. Violence and mayhem are bad enough but the real threat is in the projected increase in the non-indigenous population. This is where democracy works against the indigenous people. David Cameron and most Tories grasp the brute numbers, the cultural upheaval and the implications well enough yet these are problems which none of them can bear to face. A responsible government would initiate the necessary measures, short, medium and long term in order to ameliorate the worst effects of mass, non-white immigration. Immediate deportation of all illegal immigrants and an emphatic declaration that there shall be no amnesty for illegal immigrants (criminals) in any circumstances would be good beginnings. Again, David Cameron and his party show no sign that they are willing to tackle the range of problems. A responsible government and previous governments would of course not have permitted the present situation to have arisen in the first place. But that is where we are.

I will offer you a vision of England if nothing is done to stem the immigrant invasion:

(i). whole areas of England which are still rural will be concreted over in order to house immigrants. Do not assume that Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Park status will prevent this from happening. Cameron already wants to relax planning controls on Green Belts in order to house aliens. Aliens will be housed at the expense of the English countryside. Worse still the burden of paying for this high density housing will fall on the indigenous population. Large housing estates – 3,000 to 5,000 units - specifically intended for non-whites will be built in the countryside. There shall be no right of appeal on any grounds since the requirement to bring “diversity” to the countryside is deemed to be paramount. Farmers and other landowners who refused to sell land targeted for mass building would be served compulsory purchase orders. “Diversity” comes first;

(ii). water meters will be imposed on all properties. Large non-white immigrant families will receive water at a much lower tariff than indigenous whites. There will be similar schemes applied to electricity and gas;

(iii). immigrant numbers will translate into political power. There will be – there already is - a sordid, treacherous scramble for non-white votes by the three main parties. The interests of whites will be sacrificed where there is any electoral advantage to be gained by, say, the Conservative Party;

(iv). overcrowding, noise and pollution will make many of our cities – and not just the large ones – and medium-sized towns unbearable places in which to live and work. Expect even small villages to have “diversity” quotas imposed on them with all that that means;

(v). our large cities and towns will experience a huge increase in crime and violence, mainly from racially specific gangs, but also from non-affiliated immigrants;

(vi). specific policies of affirmative action and equal opportunities legislation modelled on American legislation will be enacted;

(vii). manifestations of any English national identity will continue to be demonised and in some cases criminalised (every other nationalism and tribal identity will be celebrated);

(viii). there will be a government-sponsored campaign to promote mixed-race marriages and households;

(ix). high-concentration Muslim cities in England will be invited to apply for semi-autonomous status. This will be the first step to full regional independence – free of any controls exercised by Westminster – and the eventual creation of the Confederation of Autonomous Muslim States. The Confederation will be recognised by the European Union since similar Muslim Autonomous Regions will by then have been created in France, Germany and Sweden. Expect the Confederation to make a declaration of independence within ten year of its founding. War with England will be inevitable and the European Union will impose a solution, by force if necessary, which is acceptable to the Confederation of Autonomous Muslim States but one which will be at the expense of the white, Christian/post-Christian indigenous population;

(x). in 2015 Magna Carta will be denounced as one of the most evil documents ever written;

(xi). your children will become a persecuted minority in their own country.

I claim the glory of Agincourt, Trafalgar and the Battle of Britain as my birthright and I accept the shame of Dunkirk and Singapore. I will not share my birthright with aliens. England is our land and our land must be ours. Shame and glory make a nation: shame is the punishment for failing to honour the covenant with our past, with what it means to be English; glory is a reminder of what can be achieved when the nation knows itself and her people are unafraid to be themselves, to revel in their national being. Shame and glory, good and evil, light and dark are some of the eternal truths with which we must live. They are the challenges that shape us and mould us. But a nation that denies its history, its language, culture, folkways; that mocks its heroes and heroines will be brought low and made easy meat for those who have no love for England.

I hope you are very worried. You should be. The ways of history are not always straight. Let us hope it is not too late to be delivered from the pestilence that threatens to overwhelm us. If you want to prevent this catastrophe then bestir your conscience and ask yourself why you still vote for a Conservative Party that prostrates itself before aliens; that hates you; that despises you; that taxes you to pay for aliens and the feckless; that sneers at your love of your great history; that wants to trample England and her people into the dust in pursuit of its hideous multiculturalism; that has betrayed you; and that actively works towards the day when England has been devoured by the United States of Europe.

Thank you very much for the invitation and good luck with the harvest.

God bless you all: and God bless England

Frank Ellis