How far back should we go in our discussions of history?
An excellent question Ron, let's try to answer it. The British Empire is an excellent place to start as it demonstrates in recent history how a sovereign native people can be occupied and conquered by an artificial construct that denies them the right to self government, or even the public acknowledgement that they exist as an individual ethnic and racial identity, separate from the artificial construct identity, as is the case with England and the English people. The British 'label' model was the forerunner of the 'United States' under a centralised federal identity, and lately the European Union, attempting the same play. The low IQ mongrel racial identity is essential for a 'One World Order and Religion' and is being forcefully pushed as an ongoing fait accompli.
The Great Replacement, Part 2: Great Britainhttps://www.defendevropa.org/2017/population-replacement/the-great-replacement-part-2-great-britain/The demographic situation in the United Kingdom is very dire indeed. As of the 2011 census, 13% of the population of our islands are foreign born. The native, white British population of England sits at just 79%, a dramatic fall from the 91% recorded in the 1991 census. In the 10 years to 2011, the Pakistani, Indian and African communities increased their shares of the overall population of the United Kingdom by 37, 57 and 63% respectively. Asians not from China or the Indian sub-continent increased their share of the population by a massive 247.9% in the same 10 year period. Meanwhile, the fertility rate of native British women has fallen well below the accepted replacement rate (2.1), to a staggering 1.7, possibly even lower, whilst the fertility rates of immigrant women from Somalia, Afghanistan and Pakistan – but living in the UK – stand at 4.19, 4.25 and 3.82 respectively. Now, 1 in 3 new born babies in the United Kingdom are not white British. There are over 80 schools in the country that do not have a single white British child in attendance. Major cities such as London, Leicester, Birmingham and Luton have seen native, white British people become an overall minority.
Startling information, but how did we get here?
The current effort to displace the native ethnic groups of the United Kingdom began in the immediate aftermath of the second world war, with the British Nationality Act of 1948 – signed by the then Labour Party government – often regarded as the beginning of the mass-immigration methods used to achieve a multicultural society. Back at that time, the governments of many Western European nations, including that of Britain, believed that they could use immigration as a way in which to plug the gap in the labour markets that had been created by the loss of the young men who tragically died at war. To this end, the British Nationality Act decreed that subjects of British territory overseas (current or historic) – those of India, Botswana or Ghana for example – automatically had the right to move freely to and from Britain, and the right to remain here indefinitely.
Commonwealth Immigration: 1948-1997Prior to 1945, the ethnic groups of the constituent countries of Great Britain – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – had been relatively homogeneous since the land was first settled. In any case, those “migrants” that came to the United Kingdom between the Roman withdrawal and 1066 (Anglo-Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Normans etc), did so in relatively small groups and from largely similar cultures. They looked like us, they behaved like us and brought their cultural benefits with them.
This all changed in the post-war period. By 1951, the foreign born population of the United Kingdom stood at 1.9 million (approx. 3% of the overall population). The largest number of the foreign born contingent in the UK were from Ireland (492,000), with tens of thousands also originating from Germany (96,000), the Soviet Union (76,000), USA (59,000), Canada (46,000), Australia (31,000) and France (30,000) – this is not a particularly startling piece of information, particularly because people from these countries that are similarly ethnically and culturally, if not directly descended from the British ethnic groups, as is the case with Canada, Australia and the USA.
What is notable, however, is the first influx of immigrants from non-western nations and non-European ethnic heritage. By 1951, 111,000 Indian-born immigrants had settled in the United Kingdom (England & Wales, to be precise), which was the first sign that the British Nationality Act of 1948 had set the government on a course which would forever alter the demographic make-up of the nations.
By 1961, the numbers had not dwindled, but had in fact risen to include various other non-European, non-western countries of origin. The number of Indian-born immigrants in the country by this time had risen to 157,000, without counting the children born in the United Kingdom to earlier Indian settlers. Furthermore, 100,000 Jamaicans had come to settle in the United Kingdom between 1951 and 1961.
This trend continued through to the 1970’s, by which time there were 313,000 Indian-born settlers in the United Kingdom, along with 171,000 Jamaicans, 136,000 Pakistanis and 36,000 Kenyans. Again, it is important to stress that these are not figures demonstrating the ethnic make-up of the nations, but rather the number of people living in England and Wales that were born in the aforementioned countries. These figures do not account for children born in the UK to parents from these countries, which one can assume to be a relatively large number, considering factors such as decreased infant mortality upon moving here, lack of belief in birth control and so on.
These trends continued through the 1970’s, into the 1980’s and beyond. However, in 1991, the government introduced the recording of ethnic classification into the compulsory census questionnaire that every resident in the United Kingdom is required to return each decade. This new classification of demographic groups has enabled us to not only analyse the number of foreign-born settlers in Britain, but also children born in the UK to one or two non-native parents and so on. This is important in the demonstration of the “changing face of Britain”, the term often used to refer to the ethnic displacement of natives and replacement by immigrants, which I shall come back to in a short while.
Mass-Immigration: 1997-2015When the Labour Party came to power in 1997 after an 18 year period in opposition, they did so with a determination to make the United Kingdom truly “multicultural”. They sought to transform Britain’s ethnic makeup, using the United States as a model for the ‘melting pot’, as has been openly expressed by various members of Tony Blair’s cabinent, one of whom claimed they sent out search parties in foreign lands for immigrants to come to Britain, whilst another (Andrew Neather) claimed they enacted this policy to “rub the right’s nose in diversity”.
In 1997, Blair appointed the Jewish MP Barbara Roche as Immigration Minister, who presided over – alongside Jewish Home Secretary Jack Straw – the most dramatic increase in third world immigration any European country saw until Angela Merkel. The “migrant crisis” that countries like Germany and Sweden have suffered since 2014 was effectively British government policy from 1997 onward. Incidentally, 1997 – the year Blair’s government came to power – was the last year that net migration to Britain was below 100,000. By 1998, net migration had jumped from 48,000 to 140,000, and this trend continued right through until the end of the government in 2010. In 2004, the Labour Party presided over an immigration policy that saw more people settle in the United Kingdom than in the entire period between 1066 and 1945.
Over the period of the Labour government between 1997 and 2010, migrants arrived in the UK at an average rate of one every minute. By 2010, 3 million immigrants had come to the United Kingdom since 1997, whilst a third of new households were immigrant families and half a million extra immigrant children had enrolled in British primary schools. Perhaps the most concerning statistic of this period for the average working class Briton is the fact that, under this Labour government, 75% of new jobs created went to migrants – this despite the fact that there was consistently over 1.5 million Britons unemployed throughout the Labour years. The majority of these migrants were from the third world, and the Labour Party had already identified the fact that immigrants from Africa and Asia are many times more likely to vote for Labour than for their rivals the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats – of course, short-term electoral gain is more important to the left than the irreparable damage they’ve done to the ethnic makeup of the nation.
It was not just the Labour Party’s lackadaisical attitude towards non-European immigration that proved disastrous for Britain, but also their willingness to open the door to the former communist countries that became part of the European “Schengen Zone” (border-free zone) in 2004. Even though the British government were offered an opt-out on this policy, that is to say that they had the chance to extracate themselves from impending migrant chaos, they refused. So, to that end, 2004 marked a dramatic increase in immigration from the European Union, particularly from Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. As of 2013, over a million (1.07, to be precise) migrants from the 8 former communist countries that acceded to the EU in 2004 had settled in Britain.
The Labour government implemted a number of policies to diliberately increase the levels of immigration. In 1997 for example, they abolished the “Primary Purpose Rule”, which removed the responsibility of non-British citizens to prove that the primary purpose of their marriage to a British citizen was not to gain entry to the country. Of course, this greatly increased the number of “sham marriages” and, therefore, immigration. In addition to this, in 1998 the government abolished exit checks to non-EU destinations, rendering it impossible to check whether or not non-European migrants on a temporary or student visa had left or illegally remained, ensuring that levels of illegal immigration sky-rocked.
Not content with just these reforms, Immigration Minister Barbara Roche announced further reforms of the Highly Skilled Work Permit system in the year 2000. As we know, Ms. Roche was very keen to force diversity on the people of Britain, therefore it is unsurprising that the changes made only served to lower the requirements for obtaining a visa for non-European migrants. Further reforms to this system were implemented in 2005 and 2008, the latter of which dropped the requirement to have an offer of employment prior to entering the United Kingdom, making it easier for immigrants to arrive here and live off the British taxpayer.
In 2010, the Conservative Party came to power in a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats on a platform of cutting net migration “to the tens of thousands” – needless to say, they failed.
By the time the coalition left office in 2015, net migration was running at record levels. In fact, in 2014, gross immigration rose from 530,000 from the previous year, to 624,000. Emigration had remained the same, meaning that net migration stood at 298,000 for that year. Despite the Conservative Party presiding over immigration levels as high as those seen under the Labour years, the British people saw fit to trust them with re-election in 2015 with the same promise of “reducing net migration to the tens of thousands”. Of course, in the short amount of time that has lapsed since this latest untruth, immigration has hit record levels. In the year to June 2016, net migration stood at 335,000 – just a thousand below the previous all-time record (2014).
“Fudging” The StatisticsAn interesting dynamic of the debate about immigration and demographics in the United Kingdom is the insistence of the government statistics bureau in using “net” migration as a marker, instead of gross immigration. By using this figure, they can A) create the impression that the numbers are smaller than they actually are, i.e 335,000 “net” migration, as opposed to 624,000 immigrants and, B) move the debate to one about numbers as opposed to the demographic effect over time.
Using net migration as a basis on which to determine the effect of immigration is based on the assumption that you are bringing in 624,000 people who are identical to the 311,000 people who left the country. In actual fact, what this means is the replacement of 311,000 British people with 624,000 non-British people – therefore the overall displacement is much greater than when we simply speak in terms of net migration. This somewhat dishonest way in which immigration statistics are reported does not allow for racial variations, so for example, the fact that non-European migrants tend to have a lower intellect and lower earning – and therefore tax-raising – potential than the British people who are emigrating. Not to mention the fact that those who emigrate tend to be towards the higher end of the economic prosperity scale, resulting in a scenario where we are replacing 300,000 British people with high tax receipts, with 600,000 non-British people who for the large part do not have any intention of contributing to the fiscal state of the nation.
Fertility RatesAs I touched upon earlier, it is not just immigration that is contributing to the demographic situation in which native British people find themselves. The fact is that, even if we were to hypothetically halt all immigration from this day forth, native British people will still see their percentage share of the overall population continue to fall, whilst that of minorities continues to rise. This is because the immigrants coming here, particularly from outside of the European Union, continue the high fertility rates that they might have in their own nations. There is often the assumption that this will change and that, as they “adopt western values”, the women will begin to have more of a career and less children. All of the available evidence suggests that this is not the case.
It is widely accepted that the “replacement rate” for an ethnic group – that is, the fertility rate required for their population size to remain the same or grow – is 2.1 children per woman. All across western Europe, the fertility rates of native women have fallen chronically below this level, and Great Britain is no exception. Official government statistics state that women born in the UK are having 1.78 children on average, yet we can assume that this figure is much lower as it does not differentiate between those who are native to the UK and those who are simply citizens by way of birth i.e descendants of immigrants.
Women living in the UK who originate from Eastern Europe have a fertility rate of 2.19, whilst immigrants from Western Europe – the most like us ethnically and culturally – have drastically low fertility rate of 1.52 (which we can safely assume is around the rate for native British women too). Contrast these with the fertility rates of women from the third world and the story is very different indeed.
As I mentioned in the introduction, women living in the UK who originate from Somalia have a fertility rate of 4,19, from Afghanistan 4.25 and from Pakistan, 3.82. This is played out in regional statistics across the country, for example, birthrates in a city such as Peterborough have jumped from 1.8 a decade ago to 2.34, in direct correlation with the large settlement of immigrants over the same time period.
1 in 12 children under 5 in England and Wales are now Muslim, which demonstrates the high fertility rates amongst immigrants and their descendants from the Muslim world. Alongside this, Muhammad (and variants) is now the most popular name for new-born boys in the United Kingdom. A child born in Birmingham – England’s second city – is more likely to be born into a Muslim family than a Christian one, whilst more than 50% of under-16s in Birmingham are non-white, with a significant number of the white population originating from Eastern Europe in any event.
The academic consensus is that by 2066 white Britons will become a minority in their own country. This will be achieved through the continuation of mass-immigration policies – the government insists we need net migration of 200,000 per year – as well as the continuation of the decline in native fertility rates, and the exponential rise in babies born to non-native women.
Socio-Cultural EffectThe changing demographics of the United Kingdom are reflected by a myriad of cultural affects that can be seen in every British city. The evidence available dispels completely the myth that culture is a mould in which all of humanity can fit seamlessly, as immigrants (particularly from the third world) are keeping their own cultural values and failing to adopt British cultures and values. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that second and third generation immigrants, particularly those of African extraction, are less integrated than their parents and grandparents, and less likely to adopt the values that are promoted as British by the politicians. This can be evidences just on a surface level by the fact that the majority of terririst incidents that occur in England are perpetrated by “home grown terrorists”, that is, those Islamic extremists that were born here but descended from previous generations of immigrants.
Crime figures are a good indicator of the cultural effects on Britain that result from immigration. Crime rates have risen in direct correlation with “diversity”, indicating that migrants are more likely to break the law and live in an anti-social manner than native British people.
As of February 2016, Eastern European migrants are committing 700 crimes per week, as rise of 40% in the preceding 5 year period. In the same period, the number of EU-born citizens living in the United Kingdom rose by 30%. in 2015, 17,000 citizens from Romania and Poland alone were convicted of criminal offences. Some figures suggest that there has been a 240% rise in the number of EU convicts in British prisons, which is estimated to be costing the taxpayer as much as £150 million.
Having said that, it would be fair to summarise that, on the whole, European migrants integrate more effectively into the British way of life than non-European migrants. Within a few generations they have adopted British names, British values and have totally closed any ties to their countries of origin – as an example, the immigrants who came to the UK during the war and in the post-war period, from Czechoslovakia and Hungary, are today indistinguishable from their native counterparts.
The same cannot be said for migrants and their descendent of non-European extraction. Specifically, citizens of African origin often reject British values and the rule of law, in favour of a more tribalistic (gang) mentality, as can be seen in the crime statistics for Great London. In England’s capital city, citizens of African origin account for 12% of the city’s population, yet they account for 32% of suspected sexual violence cases, 54% of street crime convicts (muggings, assault), 46% of knife crimes, 59% of robberies and 64% of gun related crimes. This is a stinging indictment on the ability of Africans to behave in the same way as native Britons, for such a large proportion of them do not even respect simply the British rule of law.
The same situation can be seen in the prison statistics for the country as a whole, in which blacks account for 13.7% of the prison population despite being just 3% of the overall population. Similarly, Muslims represent 5% of the UK population, but 14% of the prison population. This further demonstrates the inability of certain immigrant groups to respect the British rule of law, and the cost of replacing law-abiding native Britons with law-disregarding foreign communities.
Aside from the crime figures, we are seeing this population replacement have an issue on other aspects of our cultural lives. Language, for example, is being changed by immigration, as we now have an entire new dialect of the English language prevalent within British youth “culture” called “London Multicultural English”. It is said that this is based largely around slang terms from the Afro-Caribbean communities in the city, but has been adopted by youths of all creeds and colour in the city. This dumbed down version of the English language is now presented as a viable dialect,despite the fact that it originates from a totally alien – and frankly inaudible – set of slang words improvised by the African community.
The social shock that is incurred through this large scale population replacement can be further evidenced from the conditions under which British children are attempting to get an education. At one in nine schools in England and Wales, English is no longer the first language of a majority of pupils and in London, children who’s first language is not English are doing better statistically than native speakers, demonstrating the further damaging effect this is having on British children. Furthermore, native British children are ranked behind 14 other ethnic groups when ranked in terms of meeting educational targets at age 16, despite the fact that they rank third aged 5, suggesting that the schools system is disadvantaging native children in favour of non-natives who require extra attention i.e English lessons, translation and extra time in exams.
The effects that this multicultural agenda is having on British children is in no small part down to the teachers themselves, who at a conference last year pledged that they would refuse to teach British values as it was a case of “cultural supremacy”. When there are Marxist thinkers such as these teaching our children, it isn’t any wonder that the education system is failing British children, in favour of products of diversity.
–
The information presented is quite clear; replacing native Britons, or white Europeans in general, with those from the third world does not bode well for the well-being of a society. However, the only important prediction is that native Britons will be a minority within 5 decades. This is as a result of deliberate policies to flood our country with immigrants from both the third world and former communist states. It is not as if the powers that be are not aware of the dangers – they are – so it is safe to assume that they simply don’t care. This is an organised replacement of our population that is bringing down thousands of years of in-group development and, for the time being, we are powerless to stop it.
In the near future,
www.defendevropa.org will produce a further piece demonstrating how this same practise is being applied in Germany and how Angela Merkel’s migrant policies are ensuring that Germany is in a race to the bottom with Britain and France. In addition to this, we will publish a summary article, demonstrating the reasons why this replacement plan is being put into operation, the historical context behind this, as well as who we have identified as the key perpetrators of this crime against Europe.
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
Author
Topic: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! (Read 973328 times)
