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

More enrichment in Plymouth

Victim and attacker

Plymouth girl's attacker 'sadistic and evil'

Sabrina Barber's attack was "sustained and savage" the judge said

The leader of a girl gang who burned a teenager with a cigarette, attempted to blind her with eye liner and stamped on her face has been described as "sadistic" by a judge.

Judge Francis Gilbert QC told 16-year-old Sabrina Barber he had never seen such a "sustained and savage assault".

Her victim, Naomi Morrison, 17, was attacked by 10 girls for 90 minutes on Plymouth Hoe in December 2009.

Barber, from Plymouth, admitted causing grievous bodily harm with intent and was detained for five years.

'Savage assault'

Her co-accused, 19-year-old Melissa Rowe, also from Plymouth, was given a 10-month sentence, suspended for two years.

The gang of girls attacked their victim who was falsely accused by one of them of lying about a miscarriage.

Naomi Morrison was attacked for 90 minutes by a gang of 10 girls

Jo Martin, prosecuting at Plymouth Crown Court, said: "Barber toyed with her victim, humiliating, degrading and assaulting her."

She said Barber told Miss Morrison to lie down and "threatened to kill her and stood on her face".

Full Story

______________
Hat Tip: JP

Culture Shock

One striking element of the recent conflict unfolding on the streets of Bangkok has been the reaction of the English middle classes to the death and bloodshed on the streets of the Thai capital. “How could this be happening in the land of smiles?” they cry “What has happened to the charming and delightful Thai people we met when were were there?”

They can't believe what they are seeing because these scenes bear no comparison to Thailand, the popular holiday destination, they thought they knew.

Of course they never knew the real Thailand, they may have visited it many times, thought they loved it, dreamed of living there and praised the 'wonderful culture' to their friends upon their return, but they never really saw Thailand.

These same smug and comfortable people who, safe in their leafy sanctuaries have applauded the arrival of the invading immigrant hoards, as the bringers of low cost domestic staff, easier access to authentic ethnic cuisine and “culture Darling, such wonderful enriching culture”, have not the faintest idea of the truth of the cultures over which they swoon.

Every year you see them returning from their three weeks of luxurious indulgence in Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, the Gambia or Mombasa gushing about the wonderful culture and the delightful, friendly and happy people. We the miserable, bigoted English “could learn so much” from the “simple, contented and smiling world” they have just visited, or so they tell us. Each time you want to scream at them “Of course they smiled at you, you dumb bastard, you had just given them three months off season income in return for some beads and bits of coconut husk which their six year old was up half the night stringing together!".

The hatreds and tensions exploding now in Thailand have been simmering there for decades, but James and Chloe from Hoxton never saw them as they clapped their hands and tapped their feet to the local music in the way that embarrassing middle class English prats always do, grinning like morons as they imbibe the four or five star version of what they imagine is ethnic culture.

They see what the deeply dishonest glossy brochures tells them they will see, they see what they want to see, but what they don't see is the truth. They don't see the brutality, the violence and the hatreds which fill the lives of those living full time in the theme parks they jet in and out of every summer. Hidden from them is the corruption, the tiny battered corpses, the child abuse, the raped and battered women, the sweatshops and slavery (yes I mean slavery) not to mention the filth and decay which is the reality lurking behind the smiles.

Some even go back to the same place year after year, yet never really see it.

Some, of course, do see it, but they are the liars who, when they are raped, would rather deny they have been raped than admit the colour of their rapists. However, others, like the woman I know who recently returned from Cape Town and declared South African crime rates a myth because she has got through a two week visit without being car-jacked or murdered, believe the lies they are told, and only see a made up world.

Can we really blame the ageing Hippy mother of 15 year old Scarlet Keeling who's raped and battered body washed-up on an idyllic Goan beach in February 2008, for believing that it was perfectly safe to leave her teenage daughter in the care of a 25 year old ethnic boyfriend she had only just met?. This was Goa after all, the Utopia of the flower children, the paradise of the Lonely Planet guide generation, and only beautiful things happen in paradise.

Maybe to some degree this sort of blindness is nothing new, to our grandmothers' generation Rangoon and Mandalay were where the flying fishes played and people went to drink cocktails on sun soaked verandas, not brutalised outposts of one of the most vicious dictatorships on the planet. In the 1960's the Lebanon was a playground for the rich and beautiful, nothing like the war weary and battle scarred land it has become.

However, the difference was, previous generations, much as they may have loved different and far away cultures, real or imagined, still loved their own culture, back at home at least as much. It had not yet become a fashionable display of class and style to laud another culture, or even what one imagines another culture to be, over one's own. To earlier generations the thought of replacing their home culture with a foreign one would have been anathema.

Earlier generations also seemed to understand the principles of import and export better than the current one, and did not imagine it was necessary to import a population in order to share the tastes and pleasures of other lands. “We so love the diversity of food!!” cackle the chattering classes in defence of mass migration, speaking as if the tea, which Britons drank for centuries without considering it necessary to grant citizenship to half of India, grew in the fields of Shropshire, or that the bananas, which had been widely on sale in Britain sixty years before the docking of the Windrush, thrived around the oast houses of Kent.

When you import a people you do not gain the Holiday hotel fantasy of their culture or the vision of a land which you can buy for 2,000 Thai baht a night in Phuket, The foreigners arriving in their droves are not the beaming natives who draped garlands round your necks and danced for you with beads around their ankles in exchange for British pounds. When people are imported with their products there is a lot more to diversity than foodstuff and fabrics. What is arriving at our shores is the reality of alien culture, the one appearing on the blood spattered streets of Bangkok, Nairobi, Mogadishu and Islamabad not the picture postcard pretence sold to you by Kuoni Tours.

The other madness which merges incongruously with the asinine belief that importing cultures where child slavery, child rape, acid attacks, homophobic murder, honour killing, gang rape, political corruption, electoral fraud, xenophobia, savage animal cruelty, female, and sometimes male, genital mutilation, muti killings, kidnapping, decapitations, male rape and torture together with any number of other horrors are every day events, and which are so cruel and dangerous we can not with humanity return terrorist suspects to them, enriches Britain, is the fantasy that when people from such cultures arrive here, they will automatically become part of British society and adopt British values.

That they will, in effect become "British".

When Newsreaders aggressively and incessantly fire the word “British” at us, as if from rapid reloading machine guns, when reporting stories Asian children being kidnapped and held for ransom in Pakistan, or, as with today's tragic news item, Asian families being murdered on account of some marriage dispute whilst in Asia, we are supposed to obediently accept that these are British people who have struck unlucky whilst holidaying over seas.

When men walking down North London streets have acid poured down their throats because they romanced someone else's wife, and when girls are beaten to death by their fathers (or maybe buried alive by them) for loving the wrong man, we would be denounced as racists if we do not insist that white people do these things too.

When official figures slip out revealing that 92% of gang rape suspects in London are non-white we are obliged to blame white British society rather than point to the facts that:

* in the lands where the 92% originate gang rape is endemic

* the white 8% were part of mixed race gangs, not gangs of white rapists

Click here to read about what this group of lovelies contributed to our culture

As falsehood piles upon lie, we are are told, and required to believe that our immigrant communities suffer continuing racial violence, yet it is we, the host community, and not they who fear to walk our streets.

Our country, indeed our continent, is in the worst economic state it has ever been in in peace time, yet we are expected to enthusiastically agree when liars tell us that the mass immigration they have forced upon us has brought great economic benefits.

Yet, despair as you may, there are those who still believe it.

Much like our cousins in America, where the myths of popular belief are in some ways even further removed from reality, we in Europe live in the age where truth is rejected in favour of fantasies and downright lies. Most of our people believe not in the world as it is but as they want it to be, and amongst the worst lies are the ones they tell themselves.

I fear for them, for one day they must wake, and when they do the culture shock may well kill them.

Inculcation and Indoctrination: Appeasement and Acceptance. A recent history of Britain.

By August Pointneuf

Part I

When the British (and other Europeans) began to invite immigrants “en masse” into their small and crowded lands, onlookers were astonished.

It was clear that the British were introducing to themselves enormous problems, and that cultural and other conflicts were inevitable. Many of these arms-length observers had lived in culturally mixed communities abroad, where they found that they needed to evolve strategies to ensure their survival in multi-racial societies.

However, what made Britain particularly different was its highly structured society. There was little latitude for change, or space in Britain’s compacted population, to allow for the major social adjustment which would be necessary if transcultural immigration was permitted.

The outsider recognised that this experimentation on the British, by politicians, had no precedent. The lessons of the past had been diametrically counter to this experiment, which planned to reverse the entrenched philosophy of self-preservation and defensiveness against alienisation. For centuries these protective strategies had been in place with demonstrable success. The British governments, however, now waved all history aside with self-satisfied aplomb. It was to be irreversible.

What started it? Small groups were the prime motivators of “pro-immigration” in Britain:

“Academics", seeing themselves as superior thinkers, believed that they had an "enlightenment" which was their own special providence, and claimed they were the authoritative purveyors of morality.

“Ecclesiastics”, from the vacuum of their own deficiencies, grasped the (fundamentally flawed) ethos touted by “intellectuals”, so giving it pseudo-credibility for absorption by their absurdly credulous wards.

Politicians then channelled this novelty into their own domain as a ploy towards their proposed politico-economic engineering.

These politicians were powerful enough to begin manipulating the population and, without specific mandate, imposed their pro-immigrant views on a confused public, often surreptitiously and apparently always with self-serving goals.

Which part of the population surrendered? As a pre-emptive, the British “pro-immigrant cabal” need to be addressed:

These people standardise their techniques of demanding racial fragmentation, despite the racial homogeny which had served the British supremely well for so long past. These preachers blustered "You cannot generalise", "There are good and bad in all people", "There is only one race, the human race" even “Once we are all brown there will be no quarrels in a happy land”. Such trite, if not inane, responses have been repeated mindlessly, presumably in the hope of bludgeoning others into believing these determined, albeit irrational and misguided, airy fabricators.

Their views are counter-intuitive, and show a naivety which is embarrassing. One common motive seems to be an exhibitionistic, self-proclaiming righteousness.

Take these arguments as read and not bother with them further.

There have always been, of course, Britons of extraordinary capacity, intellect, insight, compassion and social creativity. These are the people that made Britain great, and defended its cultural integrity in the past. But unfortunately the recent breeds of politicians knew they could manipulate percentages of the population, and knowing that 50% of the electorate is the least gifted half of the population, that group was targeted. The politicians also focused on the fractions of the population which displayed the worst frailties of the human - laziness, avarice, covertness and the capacity to manipulate - in order to ensconce their authority and tighten their control over the British public.

Therefore this is not a condemnation of the sensitive and capable British; instead is condolence to those who unsuccessfully opposed the blundering political assertiveness, the political manipulation and the perversion of democracy.

So, what were the techniques which the politicians used to woo and beguile their populations?

1. "We will bring in people who will do the work for you". This was the most cynical and surreptitious of promises by politicians to their population. Some British seemed to feel that, having been successful in the war, they were entitled to the lethargy of the superior. The politicians implied that the immigrants would be an inferior group who would do the work which some British. There were some whose misappropriated sense of superiority led them to believe much “service work” was beneath their dignity and saw this as a path up the social scale. Immigrants were to become their transport workers, like the coachmen and chauffeurs of their yesteryears. There was also a strong thread of jealousy. It seemed that the "stay-at-homes" believed their more adventurous colonial brethren lived a superior life with servants at their feet. Those who had not ventured to the colonies began to begrudge the colonists. The immigrant doctrine now lead these to believe that they, too, could become “of the class” which employed the same type of servants. They didn't understand, unfortunately, that the servants of the colonists were not an expression of colonist wealth, but rather an expression of the poverty of those lands. Mostly these aspirers towards grandiosity demonstrated the evil of “wanting something for nothing" and in particular any offer of cheap labour.

2."There are not enough people to do the work". Of course this is dismissible as reason, since transport workers and others could have been easily recruited from the indigenous population, as had already been done in other countries, if sufficient salary were granted. The expectation that the British were led towards was that they were going to get people who would do unpleasant work for less. There was also the implication that these "immigrant workers" would continue to work, as a race, forever in menial jobs. This of course was blatant stupidity on the part of the British politicians. The immigrants would begin, as soon as they possibly could, to compete with the British for the higher salaries, and ultimately out-compete them in many respects. So the politicians were recklessly risking the employment of their own electorate. The British pattern of living and income were to be prejudiced by a delusion perpetrated and promoted by a ruthless set of politicians.

3."You will enjoy a more colourful society". This has been well debated elsewhere. The idea is fatuous, since the "colourfulness" of any group exists only because it is unusual and exotic. “Resident exoticism” fades fast.

4."You will benefit from the injection of new immigrant people, who will fortify and strengthen your race". This was a rather crude extrapolation of agricultural naïveté and was historically false. No non-European group has ever added materially to the civilisation(1) which the British attained in the prime of their civic capabilities. The British had been an enormously successful race, and dilution with other genes and other cultures could be expected (even if one uses simple agricultural analogies of cultivar degradation) to weaken and lessen the inherent superiority of the Briton. This civic superiority should have been obvious to all. What else would have motivated the immigrants to invade?

5."You have a charitable obligation ". Emotional manipulation was applied with leverage like "You people are so successful that you must come to the aid of the poor, starving, diseased, and cold in the rest of the world by sharing the quality of life which you enjoy”. A fatuous argument. The wretchedness of what has been called the "bottomless bucket" of impoverished human beings in the third world could not be altered by inviting a small proportion into the British homeland. Britain had to remain successful if it were to continue to support its charitable beneficiaries abroad. Self-sacrifice is self-limiting.

Part II

Illusion. The gullible Britons fell for it. They believed that immigrants would be imbued with gratitude for the hospitality received and show deference to the host culture. The immigrants were expected to respect an established and sophisticated pattern of living. It was assumed that the immigrants to Britain would have a desire to avoid offence and a willingness to share the products of a civilisation and its social structures in an equable way. These qualities were long embedded into the British culture. This behavioural structure was the contract which the British held amongst themselves, and which had been carefully passed down through the generations. These had been the internal assumptions necessary for the historic success of British society. It was thus implied that immigrants would also honour this contract.

Reality. Self-selected immigrant tranches included sufficient sub-set variants to cause an irreversible alteration of British society. These interlopers had no reason to consider that they should be beholden to their hosts. Theirs was not to show gratitude: Instead they began to believe (assisted by the “intellectuals”) that they were arriving in Britain to receive their "due". When necessary, reasons were invented to “prove” the British were indebted to the immigrant.

Immigrants sought to extract maximally from the social structures of a civilised society, with ruthless tenacity. Instead of the expected graciousness it became the pattern for many an immigrant to slander, diminish and volubly despise the natives whom they planned to eventually displace. Immigrants intended, and demonstrated, that their role would be to inject their imported cultures, and to overcome the established patterns of British life, replacing it with formats of their own inclination. Immigrants began to erode the establishment en route to overcoming and usurp the society, moving to ultimately dominate and control. The immigrant response to their admission to Britain was to display emotional manipulation, aggression, claims of moral authority, and the control of the nubile. Their unfettered indulgences are allowing them feed on, and erode away, the restraints of the civilised world into which they had been invited.

Deadly misinterpretations. Most Britons were, of course, compassionately concerned. They had a sense of charity and hospitality. There was a reluctance to hurt or condemn. There was a determination to overcome what proved to be an uncomfortable ingression caused by aliens forced upon them. But they were also prejudiced themselves by many of their own delusions including their sense of superiority. There was an arrogant belief that all immigrants would continue to appreciate the superior qualities of the British, and would aim to emulate and mimic the existing culture. So it was believed that the alien would eventually merge imperceptibly to become indistinguishable from the native population. Remember that “integration” was the key political word at that time. So arrogant was that assumption that no attempt was made to provide “house rules” of any sort. Not even would capacity in English be a necessary requirement for citizenship.

When it became clear that “integration” was impossible then “multiculturism” was the next political invention, presumably a form of “separate development”.

The British also fell for the nonsense about "strengthening the race", and the even greater stupidity of trying to make their already deep, rich, and highly cultured society "more colourful".

The last chapters. As the disarray imported with immigration started to show, the British governments tried repairs by pasting legislative pastiches over crack after crack. Astonishing legislation was progressively imposed, designed to oppress a people by forcing them into conflict with their own intuition. The population was denied the latitude to express inherent views, and prohibited from reacting instinctively. The people were prevented from expressing their concerns about the loss of their national homogeneity; something which many knew had allowed the Europeans to become the greatest race of history. Whatever this legislation might have done to “assist integration" (and there is no evidence that it has) far more important was the divisive effect it had on the British population. It perplexed and humiliated the British, and cowed them by the creation of inquisitous puppets. These nefarious informatives (which progressively included all financial institutions) became obliged, by law, to report on their fellows. Quislings spread through the population, setting neighbour against neighbour in that most invidious of socially destructive mechanisms.

A people broken. Many say that the pride and spirit of the British has been broken. In the greater part they are no longer people of warmth and hospitality, but rather a nation of the reclusive and defensive. These are the people that look at the pavements and corridor floors, rather than looking their fellows in the face, something so obvious to the visitor. These are the people who have allowed themselves to be taxed more than ever in the history of mankind. These are the people who have allowed their government a total control of their finances and savings (forcing banks to act as agents for the government instead of being the employees of the savers).These are the people who have had their privacy extirpated entirely, to be dispersed into the data banks of their controlling authorities. These seem to be people who now fear to respond and, like the light-blinded rabbit, can only passively plead for “someone” to do “something” while they await immolation.

Social and behavioural patterns destroyed. Once the context of the British culture had been warped, once the behavioural patterns of the British began to be distorted by political manacles, then the fine social equilibrium changed. The alterations have been insidious, slow enough to steal in, unnoticed by most. Long-entrenched behavioural patterns and the necessary working assumptions, essential as the infrastructure of Britain’s functional integrity, now had no footings. Emotional tensions have become universally palpable but none dare speak out. Taught bands of silence have now straight-jacket the nation. Predictability and reasonability can no longer be assumed; and have been replaced by the bizarre, and often risible, non-rationality of asinine legislation.

Immunising defences destroyed. The individual as a decision maker has been stripped of all the natural and inherent capacities to react defensively. Such social “cellular defence systems” can only exist at the level of the individual who has provided the vital immune defence systems of all societies. But the hapless Native Briton has now been forced to abdicate as the traditional defender of Britain’s previous homogenous culture. With the endemic destruction of its immune system Britain’s previous social structure is now awaiting entire collapse.

Finale. Saddest is that most British cannot see, even now, where they have been led, and do not realise that within a generation their impoverished progeny will have a total amnesia for their once great culture.


August Pontneuf

____________

(1) The Moorish exodus from Iberia left architectural and linguistic residua. However there is no evidence that the Moorish presence contributed to Civic capability. Instead, on many accounts, Iberia lagged behind the development of the rest of Europe.

Immigration will not solve Britain's Pensions Time Bomb

As I have said here repeatedly, the claim that mass immigration is the answer to Britain's impending pension's problem does not stand up to even the most rudimentary scrutiny.

Immigrants have not found the secret of eternal youth and neither do the vast majority of them have any intention of returning to their country of origin when they retire. The truth is each immigrant is a potential future pensioner who's pensions will have to be funded by our children and our grandchildren.

Far from solving the pensions crisis, immigration is adding to the problem

It is not just me saying this, new report by Migration Watch has exposed the lie that immigrants provide the solution to funding future The report, titled Immigration and Pensions, finds that “the present ratio of workers to pensioners could only be sustained by immigration at a level that would bring the population of the UK to 119 million by 2051 and 303 million by the end of the century obviously such numbers would be unsustainable in what is already the most crowded country in Europe.

Please click here to read more about the report on the BNP website, then DIG it Twitter it StumbleUpon it or just e-mail it as widely as you can. This lie must be exposed for what it is.

Not going home

Before anyone starts cheering at the sight of unemployed Polish and Eastern European immigrants being flown home you need to take a reality check, because it is ONLY the Polish and Eastern Europeans who are going home, and they were always going to anyway. The non-European immigrants are not going anywhere, they are here for good.

As I have said here before, the Poles, Czechs and Latvians were used as a smokescreen by the media and the government, who even encouraged a level of anti-Polish feeling, by, for instance, focusing so strongly on them whenever the subject of immigration came up. European immogrants were deliberately used as a distraction, to hide Nu-Stazi's true purpose, which is to import as many new Permanent, non-European, residents into the country as possible.

The only real problem with the Europeans was that they were used to keep wages artificially low, however, even if things had remained as they were before the sub-prime lead financial crisis, most of them would not have stayed for more than a few years. The Poles, Czechs and other Eastern Europeans were here to work, not to shirk. That is not so with the Somalis, that is not so with the Algerians and Iranians, and it is certainly not the case with the Bangladeshi immigrants or most of the West Indians, they ain't going anywhere!

To be fair, would you go back to where they came from?

Get on any bus in South or East London, Leeds, Bradford or Birmingham and you will see the second fastest growing group in the country. No-European pensioners (the fastest growing group, of course, is immigrant mothers). This vast number of people. Arrived in Britain over the last forty years and, and they intend to stay. And why wouldn't they, there is no old age pensions, subsidised housing and free health care in the places they left, and unlike the Poles and Estonians, when did you last see a black man or an Asian rough sleeper? There certainly are not very many.

We are constantly told that we need to import immigrants to support an ageing population, however, it seems that in fact we are importing immigrants to support ageing immigrants. In turn. the latest batch will grow old as well, and there are even more of them.

Yes, the Poles are going home, but they are the only ones who are.

Imported Culture

The young girl begged for her life, “Please don't kill me, let me live!” she cried, but her pleas were in vain, as she was dragged into the centre of the stadium where she was to die a terrible death. To the jeering crowd she was guilty of the great sin of having sex outside marriage, and for that she must die, no matter that she was the victim of gang rape, no matter that she was a a thirteen year old child. (Not 23 as the news media bizarrely first tried to suggest)

The child's age aside, it was a scene unchanged from that described two millennia earlier, where, according to the Bible, Jesus Christ confronted a group of men about to stone a young woman to death, with the words “Let he who is without sin amongst you cast the first stone”. Such words would have fallen on deaf ears, had anyone dared to repeat them in that stadium in Somalia, where no less than fifty adult men picked up stones and set about their evil deed.

This girl was not tortured to death two thousand years ago, but two months ago, and it was no isolated incident, across the Muslim world young women and girls face a similar fate at the cruel hands of their culture. I have decided not to include any pictures from the scene as they are too violent. However, I have included some equally distressing images below

Similar horrors face young men who fail to comply with the strictures of Islam, and again age is no barrier to barbarity. The picture above shows two allegedly gay youths, one only sixteen who, in 2005, were led blindfolded through the streets of Tehran, their bodies showing the signs of earlier beatings, before they were lynched from cranes in front of cheering crowds of men, screaming for their blood.

Islamic apologists later attempted to claim that the boys had raped a younger boy, but such claims have been widely discredited, it is generally accepted that they were executed for having sex, and there is certainly no dispute that in the lands of Islam men and boys face similar deaths, often far crueller ones, merely for expressing their nature in a manner disapproved of by the cult of the dead paedophile.

I am aware that some of my readers have strong views on homosexuality, however, I am sure that despite those views, like all decent people they are horrified by such savagery, and grateful that our Western society long ago did away with the horror of officially sanctioned public executions, and the casual cruelties which are commonplace elsewhere.

Sharia law prescribes all sorts of imaginative and painful deaths and mutilations, for a variety of crimes, including many which are no longer crimes in our society. Hence it is even more disturbing to note that around 40% of British Muslims want Sharia law in the UK.

Whatever, the crimes of the child in the pictures above, I doubt they were sexual, and even the most persuasive of Islamofascists would have difficulty claiming that he was a rapist. However, clearly certain cultures believe that torturing a child in this manner is acceptable.

However, that is the crux of the issue, culture, and things which are viewed as acceptable within different cultures. The whole point of a multi-cultural society is to import different cultures into our society and pay them equal regard to our own long established cultures.

The question the supporters of multiculturalism fail to address is how do we prevent the sharper sides of foreign cultures from being imported together with the marginally less unattractive ones, because the answer is that you can not.

Many undesirable aspects of foreign cultures are already being seem within our British communities, just a few examples:

• Instances of so called honour related violence, including frequent “honour killings” are now regular occurrences in the UK, as are arranged and forced marriages.
• We have churches where children are accused of witchcraft and subject to violent abuse.
• We have already seen one instance of Muti killing - aka medicine murder (an increasingly common phenomenon in sub Saharan Africa) and a disturbing number of “missing” black and Asian children.
• Female circumsism is being practised in Britain and bush meat is being imported and consumed.
• We have a special police force (Trident) which exclusively deals with gun crime in the black community, and we have seen acts of Islamic terrorism on our streets.
• A new and far more vicious imported gang culture, has devastated communities in ways undreamed of back in the 50's and 60's, the Kray brothers not withstanding

These are not cultural benefits, and what else will follow.

There is no point in claiming that our laws will stop undesirable cultures from flourishing, because they patently are not doing so. Furthermore laws are frequently changed to accommodate newcomers or simply are not applied to them. Free speech was banned in Britain in the 1970's because of immigration, and as we have seen repeatedly, for instance with the Danish cartoon protests, only certain people now get prosecuted for incitement to murder.

As for grooming minors for sexual purposes, as we all know if the victim is white and the “groomer” is not, the police will not dare to touch it.

Year by year the ugly face of many foreign cultures are becoming part of every day life in Britain, and throughout Western Europe. It is only a matter of time before the very worst is here, much of it already is, gang rape was once all but unknown in Europe, it is now occurring with sickening regularity, and as events, such as the hideous (but unreported in Britain) 2006 death of Ilan Halimi show us, it does not take much to turn the streets of Paris into those of Baghdad.

Our leaders claim that we receive great benefits from immigration, but with escalating unemployment, stretched public services, and a health service beset by health tourism and third world standards of hygiene, that lie is gradually being exposed for what it is.

And what of the so called moral argument for immigration, that we should welcome people here so that they can enjoy a better life than in the third world hell holes they are escaping. This is self evidently madness in that, in the long run, it simply enables the despotic or criminal regimes from which those seeking asylum come, to perpetuate.

If you live near a school where the teachers are murdering the children, you do not solve the matter by offering sanctuary to those kiddies who are fortunate enough to escape. At some point, someone has to sort out the school.

Offering asylum to those who escape tyranny, can only ever be a humanitarian act in the short term, beyond that it serves only to aid and abet the tyrants. Unless you believe that the entire population of the third world can move here, whilst, Africa and huge swathes of Asia and the Middle East are handed back to nature, as maybe some on the lunatic fringes of multiculturalism probably do, the international community must aim to improve the lot of the third world, within their homelands.

The so called benefits of immigration extend to some individual immigrants, but certainly not their homelands, to some politicians seeking to add to their voters, and to a small number of ruthless businessmen who believe that an unending flow of low paid immigrants will forever keep wages low. For the rest up us, the benefits are far less easy to identify.

Even those cynical politicians and businessmen may soon find the benefits are not what they imagined. Across Europe new immigrant based parties are popping up, and we now face an economic crisis, fuelled in great part by politically correct politicians forcing banks to lend to immigrants and minority groups, which has caused immeasurable damage in the financial sector.

Is it too much to hope that, at last, even they will wake up to the madness of the multicultural dream?.

An opportune Confinement

A heartwarming (for some) story entitled "Happiness Times Five" appeared in the Washington Post earlier this month. It tells how a heavily pregnant lady called Adwai Malual, from the popular tourist spot Sudan, flew to America to seek her Mother-in-Law's blessing for her pregnancy (yup! that's her story). However, once in America, she felt unwell, was rushed to hospital, and out popped five new automatic American citizens.

How very opportune!! Just think, if she hadn't happened to be visiting America, seeking mum in law's okay for getting knocked up, when she had her quintuplets, the poor little mites would have been Sudanese citizens rather than automatically Americans.

It appears there may be some issues of the bill, given that the happy mother does not have insurance, but the hospital is making various noises which suggest that they will "sort something out", and in any event, it is more than made up for by the fact that the family now have five little anchors in the land of the free.

Interestingly, if there hadn't been five babies, the story would not have made the news, so we will never know how many other world travelling mothers are in the same lucky situation. Reluctant as I am to paraphrase the ghastly Michael Howard, are you thinking what I'm thinking?

Of course, we should not forget that had Mrs Malual, been visiting relatives in Andover, Basingstoke or indeed Tower Hamlets, rather than Annapolis when her contractions started, exactly the same situation would have applied, and there would be five new British citizens anchoring their large and extended Sudanese families to our welfare state.

Naturally, given how desperate that authorities are to hide such information, there are no figures as to how many bulging foreign ladies arrive at Heathrow, grimly crossing their legs and clutching a guide to nearby maternity wards. However, is it just me who suspects they are not what you might call rarities?!!

__________________