A Response to Cameron by Dr. Frank Ellis |
| Thursday, 10 February 2011 22:25 |
From: Dr Frank Ellis
To: An Open Letter to the Prime Minister, Mr David Cameron MP Date: 9th February 2011 A.D. Re: The Prime Minister’s Speech at the Munich Security Conference February 2011 Concerning the Threat to Western Liberal Democracies by Islam and Islamic-Sponsored Terrorism
Dear Mr Cameron
I
am writing to you in connection with the speech you delivered at the
Munich Security Conference last week since its subject matter pertains
not just to the security of the United Kingdom and other Western
European states but also to the long-term survival of the indigenous
population of this country itself: the ultimate security question.
You
begin your speech by seeking to reassure fellow member NATO states that
despite the dire condition of the UK economy Britain will continue to
meet the NATO 2% defence-spending target. In general terms that is
good. However, the standard government line notwithstanding – Labour as
well as Tory – Britain is not made safer nor is our national security
enhanced by the presence of NATO troops in Afghanistan. The NATO
presence in Afghanistan has, I believe, more to do with the nuclear
ambitions of Iran.
Now,
you begin your discussion of the terrorist threat in the UK by saying
that some of these attacks are carried out ‘by our own citizens’ and
that the perpetrators, Muslims, ‘are prepared to blow themselves up and
kill their fellow citizens’ (my emphasis). But these Muslim terrorists
do not regard me, us, as ‘their fellow citizens’. Indeed, they are
correct: I am not one of ‘their fellow citizens’. Nor do I wish to be.
Formally these people may have acquired a British passport but in what
way can these people be regarded as ‘our own citizens’ when they live
in parallel societies paid for by the white indigenous population and
are at best indifferent to, and at worst murderously hostile, to the
interests of the host indigenous population? If I went to live in
Munich and started to make demands of indigenous Germans that they
adapt to my folkways, habits and customs and threatened to kill them,
would Germans regard me as one of their own? I doubt it.
True,
Europe has suffered from terrorism before the arrival of Al Qaeda and
its imitators. The key difference is however that groups such as The
Angry Brigade (England) IRA (Northern Ireland), The Red Brigades
(Italy), Direct Action (France) and Baader-Meinhof & RAF (West
Germany) were all home-grown groups. People who were active in the IRA
belong to the tribes of the British Isles. Muslims have no such claim.
They are alien. Islamic terrorism would not be a problem in the United
Kingdom had we maintained strict control over our borders and not
permitted the huge influx of immigrants from Pakistan, Sub-Saharan
Africa, the Middle East, Turkey and Somalia. This was and remains a
direct consequence of the cult of multiculturalism, a cult that
preaches the poisonous view that, for example, sub-Saharan Africans
have as much right to live in Britain as the white indigenous
population.
You
say that: ‘Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own
countries’. Who exactly needs to wake up? Millions of people throughout
Europe who over the last 40 years have seen their cities turned into
Third World slums, who have witnessed, and suffered from, the
relentless influx of immigrants, Muslim or otherwise, who have seen
their institutions – police, armed forces, health services – corrupted
by multiculturalism, who have seen their primary and secondary schools
and universities turned into centres of politically correct
indoctrination, where to be white, middle class, heterosexual and
Christian is to suffer a constant stream of insults and barely
concealed hatred, where, on the other hand, to be black or non-white is
to enjoy special, protected-species status since non-whites are
supposed to be bearers of some wonderful gift (referred to as
diversity) and a source of great wisdom.
Those of us all over Europe need no lectures from you Mr Cameron on what has been happening. If they are not exceptionally wealthy and have no choice but to endure the daily grind of commuting into our large cities or may actually have to live there, white people are confronted every day of their lives with the consequences of ‘vibrant multicultural diversity’ and have been for a long time. Take it from me they hate it and where possible they will avoid it all costs (white flight). If they work in the public sector and have large mortgages they will endure the consequences of the cult in silence, confiding their fears only to a trusted few.
All
over Europe an unaccountable class of political-functionaries has
sought to impose the alien cult of multiculturalism on the white
indigenous populations. Your call that we need to stand up to Muslims -
and it is not just Muslims – comes far too late and is, in any case,
thoroughly dishonest. The danger to the white indigenous population
posed by mass non-white immigration has been evident for a long time
and politicians of all parties have either encouraged this process of
dispossession or have been too cowardly to speak out in public. When,
in his famous speech, Enoch Powell warned of what was to come he was
mocked, derided and abandoned by people like you. The damage done to
the indigenous population, its history, culture and future may now be
irreversible. I pray to God that I am wrong; that it is not too late to
save our nation.
Your
attempts to distinguish between Islam as a religion of peace and
Islamic terrorism are doomed to failure. Such is the overwhelming
collectivist ethos of Islam and the complete absence of any respect for
the dissenting individual that Muslims resident in this country who do
not take part in acts of terrorism are not going to break ranks with
the extremists.
For Muslims the rule of law, free speech and liberal democracy are alien Western abstractions that mean very little. Given the choice between the rule of law, free speech and the civil society and Islam - in any shape or form - Muslims resident in this country will support the cause of Islam. There is no love for the British: we are just a source of welfare payments and material provision that would be impossible in Pakistan and Somalia (the reason immigrants come here).
You
state the following: ‘It is vital that we make the distinction between
religion on the one hand, and political ideology on the other. Time and
again people equate the two’. Again, your attempt to separate religion
from ideology is doomed to failure for the obvious reason that Islam,
the ideology-religion, recognises no lay principle: it is all or
nothing; it is Islam for the believers; Dhimmitude for the rest.
Consequently, whatever action Western governments take to neutralise
what they believe to be the purely political, ideological aspect of
Islam, will always be interpreted as an attack on Islam as a whole.
Indeed, such measures will be an attack on Islam as a whole since Islam
does not recognise the division between state and civil society; the
right of the individual to resist its collectivist ethos (just like
communism incidentally).
The
other factor that makes Islam a threat to the Christian West is the
birth rate among Islamic immigrants resident in the West. The huge
increase in the Muslim population throughout the West may well turn out
to be the decisive factor that overwhelms the white indigenous
population in their ancient lands, reducing them to a suppressed
minority. In all the discussions about rising food prices, metals,
access to water and productive farm land no one wishes to identify the
real problem: specifically the reckless and unsustainable breeding of
Third World Populations either in the Third World itself or in the
Third World estates that Third-Worlders have been allowed to create in
the First World.
You
cite what has happened on the streets of Tunis and Cairo as an example
of the compatibility of Western values and Islam: ‘hundreds of
thousands of people demanding the universal right to free elections and
democracy’. Middle-class, English-speaking protesters might well press
the right buttons when interviewed by some BBC reporter but the
underlying problem of Arab states and Sub-Saharan Africa is massive,
out-of-control and unsustainable population growth. This is the
Malthusian nightmare writ large and it is being played out all over the
Third World.
Egypt’s unemployed will remain unemployed (many of them are unemployable in any case). Hunger and hopelessness will gnaw at them. The results are predictable. Democracy and civil society are preposterous and irrelevant abstractions outside of Western Europe and will not feed people, certainly not in Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa. Where populations spiral out of control, as they are doing in so many parts of the world, violence, exacerbated by religious/ideological fanaticism, is inevitable.
Concerning multiculturalism in the United Kingdom you state the following:
Under
the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different
cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from
the mainstream. We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which
they feel they want to belong. We’ve even tolerated these segregated
communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.
For
the avoidance of any doubt your repeated exculpatory use of “we” does
not include me and, I suspect, millions of other Britons. Your use of
‘we’ refers to the last Labour government and the xenophiles who sought
to impose the anti-white racist cult of multiculturalism on the
indigenous population.
It is emphatically not the responsibility of the indigenous population ‘to provide a vision of a society to which they [immigrants] feel they want to belong’. If, according to you, the ‘we’ failed to provide this vision, then why did millions of Islamic immigrants join the first wave who could not find this ‘vision’? If they have no ‘vision of society to which they feel they want to belong’ why do they stay? Why not go home to Somalia, Waziristan and Sub-Saharan Africa? That these millions of immigrants have no ‘vision of society to which they feel they want to belong’ yet still stay in the Christian-infidel-infested wasteland of Britain suggests to me that their continued presence in Britain has everything to do with the fantastically generous welfare provision they receive (all the wives included) and absolutely nothing at all to do with any lack of ‘vision of society’.
You
have been reported as saying that multiculturalism has failed. I see no
clear statement of that in your speech at all. In fact, you claim that
it is the indigenous population that has driven Muslims into their
parallel societies. That you are still advocating some form of the cult
is clear when you argue that ‘instead of encouraging people to live
apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity that is open
to everyone’. National identity by its very nature is exclusive,
partial and narrow. A national identity that is ‘open to everyone’ is
not a national identity. National identity is determined by a
combination of genetic, racial, cultural, psychological, geographical,
linguistic and mental factors, tempered by the blows of history, by
shared suffering in war and peace, by humiliation and glory, by the
memory of those gone before. How can my English national identity be
open to everyone? The answer is that it cannot. National identity that
is open to everyone ceases to be a national identity; national identity
that is open to everyone is just another way of promoting
multiculturalism without using the m-word. In other words, it is a
deceit, a ploy to disarm the critics of multiculturalism who have
instinctively and rationally apprehended the cult’s
national-identity-hating agenda all along. As an Englishman who still
values his national identity I have no desire at all to share it with
others.
Do Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese, Japanese and Zulus want to share their national identity with me? Of course not: and why should they? It is their exclusive property.
Nor
do immigrants wish to share their identity with white Europeans. When,
in 2008, he addressed a large Turkish audience in Cologne, the Turkish
Prime Minister, Reccep Erdogan was quite clear by what he understood on
the question of integration. He told his audience: ‘I understand the
sensitivity you show towards the question of assimilation. Nobody can
expect that you tolerate assimilation. Nobody can expect that you
submit yourself to assimilation. Then assimilation is a crime against
humanity.’ Erdogan’s vision of how he expects Turks to behave in Europe
is just one of a number of reasons why a Muslim non-European state such
as Turkey can have no place at all in the EU.
You
argue that Muslims are attracted to extremism from a sense of not
belonging. Again you claim that this is the failure of ‘the wider
society’. You might like to ask yourself why indigenous Britons - ‘the
wider society’ - do not wish to engage with Muslims. Here are some of
the reasons why indigenous, white Christian (or heathen) Britons want
nothing to do with Islam:
I
am not convinced that you are serious about combatting the damage done
by multiculturalism. If you are then the following measures should be
taken:
(i). in
the interests of clarity and in order to remove any remaining
ambiguities you shall publicly state that multiculturalism has failed
in the United Kingdom and that it shall no longer be promoted as
policy, above all in education, so that white indigenous children are
not denied their history, culture and national pride to which they are
entitled and that where such subjects are taught they are not taught in
away that denigrates the great achievements of Britain across the
entire spectrum of human endeavour;
(ii).
the government shall acknowledge that the Macpherson Report (1999) has
had a disastrous effect on policing especially in large cities with
large black populations and shall publicly disown the report’s central
conclusions and recommendations;
(iii).
the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 shall be repealed along with
all other legislation which aims to stifle free speech under the banner
of preventing ‘hate speech’ and which leads to the persecution of white
critics of multiculturalism;
(iv).
the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the successor body to
the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), shall be disbanded
immediately;
(v).
the government shall set a limit on the number of immigrants skilled or
otherwise, who are permitted to work in this country. The option of
working in this country implies no right to citizenship;
(vi).
the government shall make it clear in a statement that there shall be
no amnesty for illegal immigrants currently resident in the United
Kingdom;
(vii).
the government shall issue a personal apology to Mr Ray Honeyford, the
former Bradford headmaster who warned of the dangers of
multiculturalism in 1982 and who for his honesty and professional
decency was vilified by xenophile extremists and abandoned;
(viii).
with immediate effect the government shall ensure that efficient and
relentless border control and surveillance (entry and departure) shall
be implemented. Such measures will include the explicit use of racial
profiling;
(ix).
the government shall take all necessary measures to ensure that illegal
immigrants are hunted down, rounded up and immediately deported. Where
possible the government shall aggressively seek to recover the costs
associated with the deportation from the illegal immigrants themselves:
property, bank accounts, valuable metals (gold, platinum), cars and so
on;
(x). those
employers who employ illegal immigrants shall be subject to severe
financial penalties and where judged appropriate terms of imprisonment;
(xi).
the government shall remove all welfare payments from the huge
underclass so that the recipients of state benefits are obliged to work
(this removes or weakens the incentive from employers to hire illegal
immigrants);
(xii).
the government of the United Kingdom shall declare that under no
circumstances will the creation of an independent Islamic/Muslim state
ever be permitted within the territory of the United Kingdom;
(xiii).
the government of the United Kingdom shall declare that the provisions
of Sharia are incompatible with the legal, political and cultural
traditions of the United Kingdom and that the exercise of Sharia shall
not be permitted within the United Kingdom and that any of judgements
as may be made by Sharia courts shall enjoy no legal or special
cultural status;
(xiv)
the government shall initiate an International Church and Mosque
Comparison Study (ICMCS). The aim of ICMCS shall be to ascertain the
status of Christian churches, artifacts and believers in all Muslim
states and the degree to which Christians endure persecution and
terror. ICMCS will pay very close attention to the status of
Christianity in those states that provide the main Muslim immigrants
currently resident in the United Kingdom. A key part of ICMCS will be
to ascertain whether the number of mosques existing or planned in the
United Kingdom is too high relative to the number of immigrants
themselves and whether the number of Christian churches in the
immigrant homelands is too low.
Finally,
I challenge the Prime Minister David Cameron MP or a senior member of
the government to debate multiculturalism and the challenge posed by
Islam, immigration and related problems with me on prime time live
television. The terms and conditions of any debate (time, format,
audience selection; lighting, citing of cameras, among other things)
shall be a matter of discussion and formal written agreement between
Ellis, Cameron and the television broadcaster.
Yours sincerely
Frank Ellis
|
Threat to Western Liberal Democracies by Islam
Time Traveller