Dr Paul Morland, a demographer and academic visitor at St Anthony’s College, said previous research had suggested that around 50 per cent to 60 per cent of the overall British population would define themselves as white British by the year 2060.
However, this would likely mean that younger age groups in primary school – and the wider population in large cities – would already have crossed the threshold where white Britons would be in a minority.
Diversity is our strenght. Discuss.
I would suggest rather than discuss it – which you’ve been doing as long as I can remember – you do something about it. Or there won’t be anything to discus.
Demographics is destiny. Who hasn’t heard that trope? But what does it actually mean?
White people may become a minority, but they will still be the largest single group, probably well into the next century.
Currently, all non- white minorities can “unite” in grifting and sponging, and whining about being “oppressed”. A potent drug indeed!
Of course, many of these “minorities” loath other “minorities”, often for cultural/historical reasons, but more often because of of the sense of superiority they all seem to have, which white people (the media/political class of white haters at least) pitifully grovel before.
Watch the US (yes, yes, I know, they have an awful lot of historical/political baggage we don’t) which is somewhat ahead of us on the demographic roller coaster.
Of course, there are places – inner city shiteholes (and before anybody kicks off, I was born in one and was delighted to get away) where white kids have been a minority for years. But there are plenty of places where white kids are an overwhelming majority.
Please, I do take this incredibly seriously, and I DO NOT like what the white vichyite class is doing to this country and the west generally.
However, when the game of “racial chairs” stops, I do wonder if there will be one for the arrogant cliques responsible, and I wonder what sort of “chairs” these (and they likely always will be) “minorities” will find themselves on.
Mark, I do have some hope that when the ropers take over, all they will succeed in doing is turn the UK (or whatever white country they have invaded in the west) into a carbon copy of whatever third world shithole they escaped from and thus, still spend their lives in a third world shithole.
Only then, there won’t be anywhere to escape to…..
Likewise in the US, Dems leaving blue states to escape the high taxes, crime and corruption go to red states and vote in Dems who enact the laws that fucked up their blue state.
I wish I had paid more attention when politicians asked us whether we wanted this. It just sort of slipped past, didn’t it…
I don’t care if the majority is white or any other colour. I do care that it should remain “British” by an overwhelmingly wide margin. It’s culture that matters not skin colour.
they will succeed in doing is turn the UK (or whatever white country they have invaded in the west) into a carbon copy of whatever third world shithole they escaped from
My best guess is you’ll end up with somewhere like civil war Lebanon. In fact the whole of Europe will, although the Eastern countries might escape it. But no doubt they’ll supply the white factions arms. May even find themselves relying on Russia. Or whatever rump remains after Putin’s misadventures.
I DO NOT like what the white vichyite class is doing to this country
The white vichyite class has a very short future in front of it. Their power bases will be progressively occupied by brown faces.
‘The Great Replacement’ is a Far-Right conspiracy theory…
There is no Great Replacement & no conspiracies. People seek to maximise what they perceive as their own personal advantage. What you have is individuals all perceiving the same advantages. Which is what makes it so dangerous. To defeat it, it’s necessary to change the incentives.
Clearly there is both a replacement going on, and a conspiracy. Every government over the last 30 years has promised to reduce immigration and yet none of them have done so. Why not – they could if they wanted to, as governments have huge power. The only explanation that makes sense is that the ‘Establishment’, for want of a better word, actively wishes to change the character of Britain by importing a new population.
Jonathan said:
“The only explanation that makes sense is that the ‘Establishment’, for want of a better word, actively wishes to change the character of Britain by importing a new population.”
No, there are plenty of other realistic explanations:
– that the Establishment are too afraid of being called “racist” to take any effective action;
– that they are more concerned with securing a supply of cheap labour than they are with the racial mix or the welfare of the existing population;
– that they wish to get the electoral support of race-based ‘community leaders’
And that’s just the easy ones; I am sure others can come up with alternative realistic explanations.
No-one here is doubting the facts, merely your claim of the motive behind them.
AndyF: That’s the important distinction. This country has been multi-*ethnic* for centuries, loads of people coming here because they wanted to become British, to be British, and felt British, arguably back to the first Chinese immigants in 150AD. It’s multi-*culturism* that shatters a culture. Why would you want to go somewhere else and not join that somewhere else’s culture. Just as much the lobsters on the Spanish coast with their fish’n’chips and English beer as with the UK.
biS, you ignore those in power who seek to maximise their personal advantage by facilitating others seeking to maximise their personal advantage. This is at the expense of the rest of us.
Jonathon @ 10.47: “Every government over the last 30 years has promised to reduce immigration and yet none of them have done so”.
The Tories made that explicit manifesto commitment in 1970……..
No-one here is doubting the facts, merely your claim of the motive behind them.
The only issue I have with Jonathan’s claim is its exclusivity. It’s not the only explanation but it is definitely part of the explanation. Likewise with bloke in spain’s “advantages and interests” angle – it’s overstated. Sometimes people do conspire to achieve ideological aims that they know cut off their noses to spite their faces. People can be weirdly self-destructive and treacherous, especially people right at the heart of things.
Sometimes people do conspire to achieve ideological aims that they know cut off their noses to spite their faces.
No. People perceive advantages differently. All you’re saying is they perceive advantages differently to you do. I can recall myself being very active in far left politics. The revolutionary end. Me a communist? You’re kidding. It was a cheap route to some easy lay, socialist totty.
What’s Spud’s advantage? Some future socialist/fascist economic paradise? Ego grooming? Or that grant money gets shovelled in his direction?
Understanding people’s motives puts one several jumps ahead of the game. But I’m not saying it’s easy.
@RichardT. Cowardice and greed are certainly motivations for politicians and business leaders to support immigration but again, it couldn’t happen without the tacit collaboration of the ‘Establishment’.
@jgh. Not true, more people immigrated into Britain in 2015 than in the 884 years between 1066 and 1950. There were undoubtedly non-Europeans here before 1950 but not in the numbers there are today.
@PJH. I can’t remember who wrote it, but someone said that the Western Ruling Class used to have a sense of Noblesse Oblige that our modern rulers simply do not. I agree with that sentiment.
Paying Elon $500,000 to move to Mars seems like the only answer.
Following up BiS’ comment, males do things to maximise getting a shag, females go things to maximise getting shelter. It may be a long line of connections between action and result, but that’s the underlying biology. So, how have the policies over the last half decade been percieved by those implementing them as increasing their chances of a shag? “Let’s import five million third worlders, as this will get me hot totty”. I just don’t see the connection. For politicians who can’t see second-order effects, their ability to gamble on possible 30th-order effects seems extraordinary.
@jgh
It certainly explains the Windrush era. Post war. Creation of the welfare state. Increasing demand for consumer goods. Labour shortage. UK could have gone for increasing productivity. Let the public sector compete with industry for labour. Upward pressure on wages incentivises automation & more efficient working practises in industry. But required investment Industry preferred continued low wage costs. So Tories in favour of immigration. Labour & union leadership also wanted continuation of low wages because wealthier working class would hazard Labour vote & union membership & power. So in favour of immigration despite large majority of working class being against. Both expected the new arrivals to become unionised & Labour voters. So UK got immigration. There’s no conspiracy between the two parties there. A coincidence of aims.
But then & now you really have to look at the incentives on the individual players with the power. And remember that in seeking personal advantage the incentives are generally fairly short term. None of them are thinking much towards the future. When the future gets here, they won’t be the ones with the power. Personal advantage has a time preference rate, the same as money does.
Of course, you have to look at what people actually do & not what they say
Diversity is our strenght. Discuss.
You spaz.
My guess is there are many thousands of people individually benefiting ( or not losing, which is the same thing) from frustrating immigration control. Lawyers & campaigners, politicians even the media. Immigration figures show up at the end of the year. Tragic stories with fotos of weeping women & children denied entry are bad optics now. No doubt there endless jobs in the civil service assigning all those asylum seekers comfy hotels. How many people are going to personally benefit in the short term from controlling immigration? There’s actually more personal downsides than upsides. And none of these people are really concerned about the long term prospects of the country or what happens personally to you.
– Me a communist? You’re kidding. It was a cheap route to some easy lay, socialist totty.
OK, so you’re an admirably cynical bastard, Lord Flashheart would mildly approve, hooray!!!, etc.
But you’re projecting when you apply it to everything. Why do people advance toward danger to save others? Why do people give a shit about other people’s kids being aborted? Why did people drink the Kool-Aid? Sure, you can put on your reductionist hat and cleverly explain it all by some form of self-interest, but it becomes such a stretched circular argument that it’s a mindless ellipse. I could just as well say it’s all explained by astronomy; astronomy being the study of the universe – which is everything.
So you had yer bosses wanting cheap labour and yer unions wanting their members kept poor and stupid. But you also had sentimental idealists believing in free movement around the Commonwealth and guilty libs wanting their imperialist culture punished by waves of wogs.
It’s not all moustache twirling calculation. People are mentalist.
@PJF
I’ve heard far too many people rationalise sound reasons for what they’re doing for their own personal benefit to swallow that. But what people perceive as their own advantage can be very complicated. Peer pressure & the desire to be accepted can be a strong motivation. People value their own reputations. When that results in good outcomes, they’re respected for it. But just as many have sacrificed others to preserve it.
And people who are good at perceiving what is actually in their own personal advantage are the people who rise to positions of power. That’s how the system unfortunately works. You think they stop doing that when they get their?
Why do people give a shit about other people’s kids being aborted?
Indeed. A very fine example. The vast majority of the abortion debate is the personal advantage people derive from their smug self satisfaction in seeking to impose their views on others. Nothing more. It’s not their problem they’re not having to deal with in either direction.
But what people perceive as their own advantage can be very complicated.
Which is where your reasoning becomes circular; even when people act clearly against their own self interest you just say it’s all a complicated method of self interest.
Like I said, the explanation has some merit but you’re overstating it. Yes, sometimes things are just a result of Bastard McBastard/s operating for gain and that’s the level at which your explanation is useful. But sometimes there’s all sorts of murky motivations afoot that are better explained by psychology and such. There’s no value in just saying it’s complicated self interest because as an explanation it offers no useful insight or solution.
@AndyF – “It’s culture that matters”
What culture? The one that Britain is the best in the world which led to building a huge empire, or the one where British people cower in terror at the thought of foreigners competing with them?
Spelling is not our strenght. Discuss.
@Charles= ‘What culture? The one that Britain is the best in the world which led to building a huge empire, or the one where British people cower in terror at the thought of foreigners competing with them?’ = you, vote for your own hardship or you’re a coward!
@Motie
Yes, always seeking the easy way out which exposes you to the least risk regardless of the cost to everyone else is certainly cowardice.