According to the Office for National Statistics the population of the United Kingdom is set to increase by 4.4 million to reach 65 million by 2016. Over the next five years there will be an increase of 880,000 a year.

Projections indicate that the population will rise to 71 million by 2031. That seems on the low side as it suggests an increase of another 6 million in the 15 years between 2016 and 2031. That is an increase of 400,000 a year.

By 2051 they estimate that the population will be 77 million. That is an increase of only 300,000 a year between 2031 and 2051.

Clearly they think the velocity of increase will slow down. I don’t know what they are basing that on. When the last projection was made in 2004, it was estimated that the 2016 population would be 63.5 million. So seven years ago they underestimated the increase by 1.5 million. This rather suggests that the figure of 71 million will be reached significantly sooner than 2031.

The increase is caused by longer life expectancy, a drastic increase of births over deaths, and large scale net inward migration.

The increase in population will be much larger in England than in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Between 2011 and 2016 England will experience an 8% increase in her population, while Scotland’s will only rise by 3%.

What does this mean for England?

England’s population will rise from about 51 million now to 60.5 million by 2031. Between 2011 and 2031 the UK population is set to rise by 10.4 million. This means that of those 10.4 million new people, 9.5 million will be crammed into England and just 900,000 spread over Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Yet if we exclude small city or island states, then England is already the fourth most overcrowded country in the world.

This will have a massive effect on the infrastructure of the country – on access to hospitals, doctors, dentists and schools. The roads will be more crowded. There will be problems with water supply and sewage treatment. More money will need to be spent on translation services. It means that there will be much more competition for jobs, particularly at the lower end of the market. With more young people here originating from low wage economies earnings will be driven down to the minimum wage. It will become the modal average wage.

Up until the early 1980s it was usually said that Britain had absorbed around 1.9 million immigrants since the war. That is in 35 years. That is an average of less than 55,000 a year. There was considerable disquiet about rates of immigration at that time. Major politicians addressed these concerns – it was not just the fringe.

In 1968 Enoch Powell made his famous ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech and in 1978 Margaret Thatcher said People are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture”.

These comparatively low levels immigration effected a profound change upon English society. It ushered in political correctness and the multi-cultural dogma whereby the expression of Englishness became more or less verboten.

It affected England because the overwhelming majority of these immigrants settled in England, just as the overwhelming majority of the new immigrants have and will settle in England

It is primarily an English problem that requires an English solution.

What will England look like in just five years time?

The Office for National Statistics estimate that migration will add 190,000 new people a year. The migration figures are net – in other words immigrants minus emigrants. The actual flow, the ‘churn’ is much greater.

If we look at 2010 in particular, 575,000 people immigrated in while, 336,000 emigrated out. This leaves a net figure for that year of 239,000. A large number of people who emigrate are from the host population who give up and move to the Costas or perhaps the Antipodes.

For those who claim that most migrants are Eastern Europeans, the largest single group of long-term migrants were overseas students, with 228,000 arriving in 2010 and 78% of them were from outside the European Union.

In 2009 80% of people granted settlement were from Africa and Asia.

As the age profile of migrants is much younger than that in the host population and because migrants tend to have larger families, the increase in population through births outnumbering deaths will also have the effect of increasing the proportion of migrants and their offspring in England.

The effect of this – the differential birth rates and the fact that most emigrants are, let’s face it, ‘ethnically’ English while few immigrants are – is that England is very rapidly losing its Englishness.

If anyone thinks that these vast numbers of new arrivals will absorb any aspect of Englishness over the next few years, when the very concept of England or what it means to be English is actively discouraged by the liberal ascendency, then they must be living in cloud cuckoo land.

The traditional English population is rapidly declining. It is not reproducing itself in terms of births over deaths and increasing numbers are emigrating.

In England the host population will fall by at least 6 million by 2031. In that time the migrant population will rise by 16 million. That is on top of the changes which have already taken place over the past ten years.

These figures suggest that in 2031 the English will almost be a minority in England.

What is the answer?

Some will run around in circles and demand the compulsory repatriation of every single ethnic foreigner. This is futile and self destructive as English people will not support such a policy in any appreciable numbers. Hard line solutions will not work and are unappealing to our countrymen. That is a simple fact and anyone who pursues such policies must be a fantasist and is part of the problem.

The only answer is to embrace those migrants who share our values, mostly those who came here some time ago, and build a sensible cohesive force that can unite our people and save us from obliteration.

That obliteration will not just be ethnic, it will be cultural also. All our traditions, our customs, our entire way of life will be swept away.

We must put an end to new immigration and deport the many illegal immigrants and bogus asylum seekers which are hitching a free ride. We must stabilise our population and rebuild our national community.

Ironically liberalism, our own worst internal enemy will die as well. Free speech, free association, free and fair elections, sexual equality, our English Common Law – it will all be lost. The new population will not understand or respect these things. Civil disorder of the sort seen in this summers riots will become the norm.

As I have said, it is primarily an English problem and it will need an English solution. It is another reason why the nations of these islands have to come to a new understanding with each other.

In England it requires a rebirth of our national spirit. A spirit that has been deliberately suppressed by the liberal ascendency for two generations. There are signs that this is happening. We must nurture these new shoots so that they grow and flourish. This is our last chance – our last hope.


  1. One major aspect of the problem is the increasing
    number of Ethnic British women who are deciding
    to have small or even no families. Whatever political moves are successful in countering
    the ongoing massive immigration will be worth
    zilch unless our women can pull their fingers out and have many more children.As another site
    pointed out there have been 7 million abortions
    on the island since the laws were changed about
    45 years ago. 95% of these were Ethnic Britons.
    It's a frightening figure and makes one think
    if we are going to kill our children in this way, we shouldn't complain if we then lose the
    island as well.
  2. Obviously can't ship them all back;however, there is not need to cater to the ones smothering the Motherland, either.
    Must never water down the stance that we are for Our Peoples, White, Bright, and Beautiful.
  3. The optimum population for England is 30,million, and the English are now a docile breed who have been successfully sedated by the BBC (a wing of Common Purpose)
    and legislated into servile obedience. The arrest of a Judge at Birkenhead Court by Roger Hayes for Treason with a large group of supporters was wilfully ignored by the Media, shows the English can get up off their asses when motivated. I am going to start a political party called the "English Commonwealth Party",we must take back all our land and property stolen from the English, like English Water, English Rail, English Gas, English Electric etc I nominate Eddy as President.
  4. I like that remark about nominating Eddy as president. Of course this will mean the termination of contract of the other lot up at Windsor. But to be honest they really have not shown a lot of enthusiasm for the people they are supposed to rule as of late. But I think if Joe Soap can get a P45 for not doing his job properly then it must apply all the way to the top.
    Nor, neither does this view particulary contradict the views expressed or otherwise of the English Democrats.
    Such is my undestanding.

  5. Excellent article laying down the facts in detail not the fantasy which both the left and the nationalist right are prone to engaging in.

    I attended my first UKIP meeting last week and Farage and the local UKIP MEP and agriculture spokesman was there. I was impressed by the turn out with the first hall being so packed that a second hall had to be hired out at short notice and was also full to the brim with standing room only. All together there were well over 200 people there on a Thursday night.

    A major difference from BNP events was that there was free beer and wine but the most shocking difference was that at the end of the night there was still free beer and wine left over and nobody appeared to be pissed.

    I hung around enough to suss out that the people were from a variety of backgrounds probably predominantly lower middle class but with some builders etc there also. The atmosphere was friendly and less tense than at a BNP meeting and the speeches (Farage was good) somewhat less exciting.

    The local organiser was keen to get to know me and remained so even after I told him of my past association with the BNP. He said that their activist base is almost non existant. The organiser was certainly somewhat more militant than the leadership are and he told me that they (UKIP leadership) are afraid to discuss immigration.

    I managed a quick exchange of ideas with the MEP bloke and asked him if there was any possibility of UKIP 'becoming a little more outspoken and radical when it comes to discussing immigration and identity'.

    His reply was that they already consider themselves to be outspoken and that by being more 'militant' they will 'gain some voters and loose others'.

    I don't understand why UKIP persist in telling us that all our problems stem from Europe and therefore Europe should be the focus of all attention.

    Surveys have shown that only between 1-4% of the British public considered Europe to be the crucial issue at the last election compared to something like 50-70% or more for immigration and the economy. UKIP would actually gain support by talking about the details of what is included in the Euro package ie mass immigration and no control of our borders. Stopping immigration is a vote winner provided race is largely left out of the equation.

    When you say Europe, 96% of the British public go to sleep or start thinking about mediteranean holidays.

    Say immigration and people think of Tower Hamlets, Brixton, handsworth, Toxteth, Tottenham and halal butchers shops.

    UKIP needs radicalising but there is definitely something there which the other nationalist groups cannot ignore because for better or for worse their membership and voting base will one day be a part of our nationalist movement.
  6. What would be your stance on the EU with this pro English outlook? Would you call for an immediate withdrawal or would you advocate staying in the EU and being recognised as England?
  7. How would you define an English man if your goal was achieved? Would you recognise our monarchy as the monarchy is for the United Kingdoms?
  8. Heard on the BBC a remark that 20,000 children receive child benefit in Warsaw alone, why come and live here, we the wonderful English will send you our benefits wherever you live. The only people who know the true population of Britain are the people who feed them, Tesco research, found that Britain's population reached over 80 million two years ago. So folks we live in a true demockery ruled by liars and more liars and liars without end.
  9. I am not embracing any West Indians or Asians who have been here since 1948. I want to make it unpleasant for them so they won't want to stay.
  10. Dear John Beattie, Its called expulsion, Mugabe practised it, it was used to rid whites from Zimbabwi, the government in Libya to rids itself of blacks, expulsion the word originates from Sion, its a common feature of human behaviour, when the genetic antennae start working the alarm bells ring loudly enough, the threatened wake up.
  11. Daily Mail,Saturday,October 29,2011.
    Blair defends opening the door to mass immigration
    1st paragraph...
    Tony Blair has defended Labour's controversial mass immigration policy by claiming Britain cannot succeed unless it opens its borders to more people from different backgrounds.
    7th and final paragraph...
    Mr Blair's comments could fuel claims that the rise in migrants was a politically motivated attempt to change the nation.
    I'm sure readers of this blog will agree,it was without any shadow of doubt politically motivated, and the attempt to change the nation is an unmitigated success.
    Mr.Blair et al will have been rewarded handsomely for their treachery.
    Cameron is merely more of the same. This comes as no surprise as he made no secret of his admiration for Blair during his [Blairs]time in office.
    It was only the BNP that spokeout for the British people without fear. Unfortunately Griffin, and, his sycophants, and loyal supporters have ruined what was, a growing party, going in the right direction.
    Has there ever been a more opportune time in British history for a Nationalist party? If only all Nationalists would/could unite for the sake of the country. This isn't going to happen because there are many different views and approaches to Nationalism.
    Doing nothing and watching the clock tick is not an option. We are running out of time.
  12. Eddie

    Your figures in the first 3 paras were correct. But you subsequently state "England’s population will rise from about 51 million now to 60.5 million by 2031." That is wrong and contradicts your earlier stats. The current pop'n in 2011 is at least 60.5 million on official analysis.
  13. Eddy said:

    "What is the answer?
    Some will run around in circles and demand the compulsory repatriation of every single ethnic foreigner. This is futile and self destructive AS ENGLISH PEOPLE WILL NOT SUPPORT SUCH A POLICY in any appreciable numbers. Hard line solutions will not work and ARE UNAPPEALING TO OUR COUNTRYMEN. That is a simple fact and anyone who pursues such policies must be a fantasist and is part of the problem."

    (1) So then does Eddy have a database on his lapotop of all the thoughts of every English person in the country?
    No he doesn't, it's just Eddy's theory.

    (2) "It's a fact". Is it?
    'There are no such things as facts, only interpretations'.
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    (3) Anyone who pursues such a policy is part of the problem?
    What, anyone who wants a White only country is part of the multi-racial problem?
    Even Tony Blair couldn't perform such 'logic' mental gymnastics.

    (4) They're "fantasists".
    No, they're people with a different idea to Eddy's.
  14. The EDs policy is for the nations of Britain to be in a federation where foreign and defence issues (for example) are handled at the federal level. The Queen’s role would primarily be at the federal level as well.
    The Queen is the Queen of England and separately the Queen of Scotland. The Queen’s status would not be altered.
    Membership of the European Union is a foreign policy issue although it obviously has an impact on all areas.
    The EDs policy is to leave the EU. That would logically affect the entire federations status within the EU as England would be by far the largest component of that federation.

    It is not necessary for me to define what an Englishman is or to say who is and who isn’t an Englishman. Do you think what I say on the matter, or indeed what the government says, will change whether any individual is English or not? Do you think that someone’s status as English is dependent on a law passed in a legislative assembly or do you think that being English is dependent on something else?

    England’s – not the UK’s – population is about 50.5 million. The UK’s is about 60.6 million.
    By 2031 it is estimated that England’s will be 60.5 million and the UK’s 71 million.

    Jay – I don’t need a database nor do I need to ask everyone to know that “English people will not support such a policy in any appreciable numbers”, and that “Hard line solutions will not work and are unappealing to our countrymen.”
    In my opinion anyone who seriously tries to believe the contrary is a fantasist.
    It is blatantly obvious.
    By pursuing this fantasy those who do so are not doing anything useful to solve the problem. While not helping solve the problem yet they also tend to sustain the negative impressions that most people have about anyone who raises issues related to the ethnic question. They invariably do this by the way they promote their views, with extreme modes of behaviour that create very negative stereotypes. This is actually how mainstream nationalism has been behaving for the past fifty or more years. Organised Nationalism has done more than its fair share of making this area of politics utterly toxic to mainstream society and made us almost impotent to affect change.
  15. Blair and Cameron are clones of each other, the
    former is not English and regards England for himself as a foreign country. The loyalties of
    these two creepy eunuchs certainly are not for England, they have no racial or nationalistic loyalties, but they are considerably closer to Scotland than anywhere else. It's about time England had English ONLY cabinet ministers and PMs.Someone like Blair deserves to be given a very hard time for the remainder of his life after the awesome damage he has done to England.It's basically a repeat performance by Cameron. Do you notice how this stinking creep
    won't appear on any shall we say ' risky '
    TV talk programs. Why? Because he is a bad liar and has absolutely no arguments or answers.He only does tame one-to-one interviews such as the Andrew Marr show on Sunday mornings.Quite honestly you are better off going to church and listening to some tripe about tolerance than listening to the Andrew Marr show. The
    traitor Blair at least has the ability to talk
    people into a coma.
  16. People who want a whites only Britain are indeed part of the problem because its partly thanks to fantasists like them that we have never been able to get enough of the public to vote for us and thereby stop immigration.

  17. "29 October 2011 15:54"

    Hear hear! Well said!!!

    Lawrence Rustem
  18. 29 October 2011 BBC News

    "MP Mike Freer 'threatened at mosque surgery'

    "An MP has described how he waited for police behind a locked door during a constituency surgery after he was threatened by a group of men.

    Mike Freer said it happened at North Finchley mosque in north London as he met constituents on Friday afternoon.

    Mr Freer said about 12 people forced their way inside, with one of them calling him a "Jewish homosexual pig".

    The trouble began after messages on the Muslims Against Crusades website urged supporters to target him, he said.

    Mr Freer said a message posted ahead of the incident on the group's website made reference to Labour MP Stephen Timms, who was stabbed while holding a surgery in east London last year.

    It warned the attack on Mr Timms should serve as a "piercing reminder" to politicians that "their presence is no longer welcome in any Muslim area".

    The Finchley and Golders Green MP, a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel, said there was a vocal demonstration outside the mosque as he began his surgery, but then a second group of people arrived and forced their way inside.

    'Blood on hands'

    "One of them sat at a table where I was dealing with a constituent and was abusive," he said.

    The MP said he was then escorted by staff at the mosque to a locked part of the building until assistance arrived.

    Mr Freer said he only realised the potential danger he had been in when he was made aware of the website's reference to the attack on East Ham MP Mr Timms.

    The message also stated that "as a member of the Conservative Party", Mr Freer had "the blood of thousands of Muslims on his hands".

    "Had I seen the website beforehand, I suspect it might have been a bit more worrying," the MP said.

    Mr Freer, who played a prominent role in the campaign against Palestinian activist Sheikh Raed Salah's visit to the UK earlier in the year, said he would "continue to condemn all forms of religious intolerance".

    He added that he wanted Home Secretary Theresa May to monitor closely the actions of Muslims Against Crusades.

    A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: "Officers attended North Finchley Mosque at 4.10pm on Friday after a disturbance by protesters inside the building.

    "There were no arrests."

  19. Sweden’s Immigration Debate

    By Amy Kellogg

    Published October 28, 2011

    | FoxNews.com

    Read more and watch the video......check out the mayor!!


    "We are in Malmo, not to discuss sustainability and fair trade in the city, but rather its massive immigration, which some call a problem, others consider a gift.
    One-third of Malmo’s population is foreign-born. Another 10 percent are of a different nationality. The biggest influx these days is from the Muslim world. Many of them are very traditional-- a small group is quite extreme.

    Sweden has a population of 9 million — of those, 1.4 million are immigrants. Approximately 100,000 pour in each year. Ilmar Reepalu thinks that’s a good thing.

    “Sweden needs lots of immigrants,” he says, “because otherwise we can’t keep up our welfare system. We, as most parts of Europe, have too few people. Within the coming 20 years, we will have a lack of labor force, so we need more people coming to Sweden. We don’t have enough kids from ourselves.”

    Sweden has probably the most generous immigration, asylum and welfare policies in the world.

    Some natives have had it with this bottomless funding pit. For the first time last year, voters elected the far right anti-immigration Sweden Democrats—giving them a handful of seats in Parliament.

    MP Kent Ekeroth disputes the argument that immigration keeps Sweden’s welfare system afloat.

    “What kind of immigrants do we take in? It’s people from Somalia who have done nothing but herd sheep their whole life and we expect them to benefit our society? It’s ridiculous.”

    The Sweden Democrats advocate cutting back 90 percent on immigration, redirecting the money currently spent on housing and caring for refugees to programs to improve life in their home countries.

    “If you bring one immigrant to Sweden, it’s expensive. It costs a lot of money. If you put that money to use in Africa or the Middle East or wherever, you can help hundreds more.” Ekeroth goes even further, “If you put this money over there to help them with food, with medicine, with education or whatever, you can help hundreds, maybe thousands, more. So what’s more humane? To help one person lead a life of luxury here in Sweden or to help 1000 to avoid starvation in Africa?”

    The Sweden Democrats’ views have made them targets both of Sweden’s left, and of immigrants. Ekeroth travels with security.

    The tensions that have come as a result of the swelling immigration have affected all sides.

    Riots have periodically broken out in a largely Muslim neighborhood of Malmo, called Rosengard, sparked by the perception of mistreatment of residents by the police or other authorities. Firefighters at the scenes of some of these riots have been attacked. As a result, they will often refuse to answer calls to put out fires there without police escort.

    There has been an Islamophobic backlash. Scandinavia’s largest mosque happens to be in Malmo. It was set on fire in 2004. The culprit was never found. An imam was shot on the premises. The head of the Islamic Center at Malmo’s main mosque, a man named Bejzat Becirov, regularly receives hate mail, adorned with pigs and pictures of Usama Bin Laden.

    Becirov, a moderate Muslim from the former Yugoslavia, and hence, a European, from a community where women did not typically wear the veil, thinks the culprits behind these attacks on his mosque may be neo-Nazis, but may also be extremist Muslims who don’t like Becirov’s message of integration".
  20. Eddy I spend a lot of time talking to people, take a few minutes and gently bring up the subject of immigrants, I simply say, how big is Africa, How big is India, How big is Pakistan, Why do they come here?: they answer the question themselves, Immigrants can say if my family want money the English give to us, a house for free, a doctor for free, hospital care its free, you name it we are given it, ITS FREE. Want a sedative? if you're English you got to pay for it
  21. I would urge everybody to read the following passage from 'Without Conscience - The Disturbing World Of The Psychopaths Among Us' by Professor Robert Hare.

    "Psychopaths usually don't get along well with one another. The last thing an egocentric, selfish, demanding, callous person wants is someone just like him. Two stars is one too many. Occasionally, however, psychopaths become temporary partners in crime--a grim symbiosis with unfortunate consequences for other people. Generally, one member of the pair is a "talker" who gets his or her way through charm, deceit, and manipulation, whereas the other is a "doer" who prefers direct action--intimidation and force. As long as their interests are complementary, they make a formidable pair."

    Two names spring immediately to mind. Griffin and Jefferson.
  22. Eddy , I have been working the doors for years now and have been head doorman at the same black country nightspot for seven years . Almost all the guys who work with me are black and are my best mates, every week its like going to war together and i trust these guys with my life . All these friends of mine are as fed up with immigration as the rest of us . in fact the one black guy as left the Dudley area because of the social decline due to unlimited mass influx of immigrants in to the town . The point im trying to make is that times have changed and if we are to have any chance of saving what's left of this country then certain people have got to stop wasting there time and energy on hating others because there a different colour and concentrate on the real important issues like winning elections and stopping mass immigration that will eventually finish us as a British nation .
  23. So the use of the term federation in the way you have applied it really leads to continue the work of the localism bill. It is not much different to a united kingdom with devolved parliaments. You didn't clarify what you thought about Eu membership, if its worthwhile sticking in and renegotiating or leaving etc?
    How would this federal route affect the channel islands or the Isle of Man? How would it apply to the Cornish? Or is it just the same as what we have got with different words?
  24. A lot of people (save for the first commenter) are quietly avoiding the issue of the UKs falling birth rate and rising dependency rate. The UK white population has a relatively low birth rate and is long lived. If it were not for the effect of immigration, the UK would have a considerably higher dependency ration and would be looking at a rather more problematic future with large numebrs of elderly and relatively few people of working age. Even as it is, this ratio is shifting in a way which thretens UK econmic interests. The more "send them home" posters on here might be less inclined when they realsie that the people they want to send home are probably providing many of the services on which they depend, or will depend. The problem of integration - or lack of it - is an issue that must be addressed by government and groups in society, but if we want to have an elderly population, we need younger workers to support them and given that 1 in 3 women in the UK under 30 will never have children, migration might just be our last best hope.

    Oh, and by the way, the spanish are starting to get shirty about the numbers of elderly brits who are using their healthcare system - some mighht go so far as to say that they should be sent back to the UK having not paid into the spanish health system!
  25. I object to the first comment; I do not want any children & I refuse to have any, it is not my fault that successive governments have allowed in to my country hoardes of over-breeding foreigners (I didn't vote for any of them). Some women are not cut out for motherhood - get over it. I don't eat food that I don't like, I don't listen to music that I don't like, I don't watch TV shows that I don't like, so I sure as hell am not going to have children when I don't want them.
  26. Spaniel-lover you are a typical case of spoilt
    selfishness which is one of the main reasons we are losing the island.You are part of the problem not the solution.
  27. Hi Eddy, This column is just what we need, Free speech, a variety of views, sincere, a general nationalist approach, open minds is what we need to understand what the general mood and mindset of people is. A social cohesion based on gentle Nationalism not the rabid rejection of all immigrants just because they are.
  28. Dowson starts New Party

  29. To be fair to Spaniel-lover some people are not natural mothers and if they were somehow coerced into having children they would not bring them up well. Not having children is not being part of the problem. Adopting unrealistic or harmful political stances makes you part of the problem.
    Having said that I am slightly surprised to learn that spaniel-liver is so adverse to having children herself.
  30. Wolfie........If you are still around my friend then welcome to the Eddy Butler blogspot and before anyone insults you can I say how nice it is to have a lefty visiting a nationalist site. I think you will find that most sensible nationalists welcome opportunities to debate with the left as we find your arguments so easy to dismantle. Most people on the left also know this which is why they hide behind the 'no platform' no debate, no freedom of expression position.

    The argument you and the most other lefties advance about the need for immigration in order that wee have people to look after our elderly is a particularly easy one to disprove. Clearly the 4 million plus immigrants who have arrived in the last 10 years or so will themselves become old in 30-40 years time. Who will then look after them? Our children and indeed the off spring of previous generations of immigrants will be lumbered with a far bigger problem than currently exists. Then what. Invite a load more immigrants over to look after them. You are being fooled. Only big business benefits from immigration. The left should have opposed immigration in the same way that the trade unions in Poland apparently oppose immigration from the Ukraine.

    At best your argument only provides a very short term solution, but even then you have to take into account the fact that those of immigrant descent (with the exception of the relatively small numbers of Sikhs, Hindus and Chinese in England) are far more likely to place a burden on the state than indigenous English people are. This is reflected in their disproportionate representation in crime figures, unemployment figures and all the additional interventions they are more likely to require such as social services, translation services and all the paraphanalia of the multi cult with seperate community centres equality and diversity training for the indigenous population etc etc etc.

    I do welcome your opinion though. Please feel free to reply if you have a sensible opinion on what I have said.

  31. How pathetic to say that women like me should have children when we don't want them - you should be advocating mass steralization programmes in places like the Phillippenes. As I said, I have never voted for one of these pro-immigration parties, & before Griffin killed the BNP I did a heck of a lot of work for that party (in order to try & right the wrongs of the pro-immigration parties). I myself have a mother who didn't particularly want children & doesn't particularly like children - it's not nice. IT IS THE THIRD WORLDERS WHO ARE HAVING TOO MANY CHILDREN,*NOT* EUROPEAN WOMEN HAVING TOO FEW.
  32. As a Welshman, I concur, England is bearing the brunt of immigration, which is why the other Home Nations don't seem that bothered about it.

    Immigration needs to be stopped, it's like an over flowing bath, pointless worrying about the water on the floor until you've turned the taps off, then you can start the damage control.

    Personally I can't see an answer, our politicians are too busy lining their pockets, most voters are apathetic and many people in the nationalist cause are quite frankly nutters or weirdos.

    Unless we get a good competent politician like Geert Wilders, we're finished as a nation. Quite frankly, I'm glad my pension kicks in when I'm 60 (14 years) and I can then sell up and move abroad. Until then I'll do my best to stop the rot, but after that, all the lazy bastards who haven't lifted a finger to do something can all enjoy their multiculturalism.
  33. Manxman: I take some of what you say, and to be honest this is an issue that's so fiendishly complex that it's potentially impossible to address in a lifetime., much less a blog post.

    Starting from the bottom of your post, i'd take issue that immigrants per se are more likely to appear in benefit / crime / etc figures that the "indigenous population". I think that both of these groups (immigrants and indigenous) are in no way homogenous. Therefore some sections of the white population are very likely to appear in such figures and equally some sections of the immigrant popualtion are likely to appear at the top end of the social scale. It's simply too easy to make those kinds of generalisations, and i'd suggest we need to look at groups in close detail. At heart, what all disadvantaged social groups suffer from is a lack of access to education and services and low expectations. in some ways, immigrant origin groups (and certainly the ones i work with) are far more likely to achieve in education that their white counterparts as they are far more motivated.

    As to the need for immigration, well i happily accept that it's a double edged sword - it has benefits and downsides and these are very complex. In the short term, we may well benefit from immigration to some extent if community cohesion can be maintained. I think this is the nub of the problem - we need to ensure that communities work together and in my home city of Bradford the self segregation that the ousley report identified ten years ago has not changed and if anything has got worse. governments don't help this by supporting things like faith schools - i firmly believe we need a secular education system. Communities which self segregate (both white and non-white) don't help, but also the media and those who seek to demonise non-whites don't help. In short, everyone needs to do something and the something needs to involve engagement and not yah-boo politicking at others.

    For myself, i do believe we have sold ourselves short in the last 30 years . By failing to protect our industrial base, we have cretaed a low wage society with a substantial group of have nots. It's instructive to compare the attitudes of the italians and french, who aim to ensure employment for as many as possible, with that of our own government. My own view that unemployment is the threatr to this country and if we can ensure better levels of employment then people will have a greater degre of security and our fear of "immigrants" and the other will recede. However, there's no risk of that happening under any government i can forsee for i do agree that we have been sold out to global capital.

No comments:

Post a Comment