Dear Mr. Cameron---You're a little late, don't ya think?
Nobody Gets Email on Saturday Night:Last week this came to me, pretty much while Cairo was burning. This week, the news is on our own country's problems. But it seems, we are NOW finding out, that Obama and his many arms of "community servicers" were behind the middle East AND the union strikes in Wisconsin.
It's a letter to Prime Minister David Cameron, and I included the full text here. It's a bit long, but it's pretty good.(Thanks to amfortas)
*****
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:
Suicide-homicide bombers; sharia; jihad; the obscene practice of female circumcision; so-called honour killings; stoning women to death; polygamy, the sexual grooming of white girls; extreme censorship; hatred of free speech; welfare parasitism; mosques; continuing, active terroristic hatred of white European host societies; and the cruel murders of Christians in the Middle East (and Turkey).
I am not convinced that you are serious about combating the damage done by multiculturalism.
From Dr. Frank Ellis
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:
Suicide-homicide bombers; sharia; jihad; the obscene practice of female circumcision; so-called honour killings; stoning women to death; polygamy, the sexual grooming of white girls; extreme censorship; hatred of free speech; welfare parasitism; mosques; continuing, active terroristic hatred of white European host societies; and the cruel murders of Christians in the Middle East (and Turkey).
I am not convinced that you are serious about combating the damage done by multiculturalism.
From Dr. Frank Ellis
Labels: politics
posted by Joyanna Adams at 8:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home