The Strange Death of Europe - Douglas K Murry
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 silvertop  Portishead 14 Dec 17 4.19pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Interesting that those who comment on types of crime being perpetrated by certain racial groups are branded racist just for pointing out any correlation. And a person who points out that those who repress those who point these facts out... are themselves racist! Also intriguing the way this has been done on this very thread by the usual posters from their perceived moral high ground with such a casual waive of the hand. Symptomatic of the fact that this is a problem that the political elite will refuse to address. The very person who critiqued the OPs book by saying it is EDF with better words is the very person who would say that it is racist reporting to refer to ethnicity and/or the religion of those who have committed the terrorist atrocities of recent years. It's bonkers really, isn't it? Like it or not, if someone is seeking to scam your mum through some computer fraud, the voice on the end of the line will doubtless be from the Indian sub-continent. An e-mail urging you to allow a foreign "prince" to deposit large sums of money into your bank account will probably be from a person of Nigerian origin. Child trafficking, identity theft and credit card and tax fraud are all crimes where a preponderance of the offenders hail from certain groups. Solution: target those groups to ensure better education and prevention. Reality: bury head in sand as to so target is to be "racist". I have worried for some time that there will be a populist back-lash from the vast majority of people who live in the West. It is already happening. And as our relative dominance in the world dwindles this is likely to get worse; and place multiculturalism in grave peril. Time to wake up?
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Stirlingsays 14 Dec 17 4.30pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
But the numbers aren't particularly large, they're unlikely to double in the next decade to 10% It may slow but essentially not that much. Regardless the increase in percentage points without reformist change equals a proportionally larger problem. Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Also in immigration, we need great distribution of immigrants across the UK, not isolated 'ghettoisation' if we want to facilitate better integration. Nice idea.....never happen. The majority of 'people of a feather flock together' and in free societies that will never change.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| crystal balls The Garden of Earthly Delights 15 Dec 17 6.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
That is simply not true. The primary reason why we began to encourage immigration in the 50's was that the workforce was diminishing. The trend was a reduction in young people caused by a declining birth rate which would within a few decades meant an actual drop in the population. Face the facts. I'm afraid it is you that is mistaken and need to face the facts; the actual boom (or more accurately booms) in births in the UK actually occurred both pre and post war and again throughout the 60s. The birth rate fell in the late 70s and throughout the 80s. The reason that immigrants were encouraged in the 50s and 60s was that there was virtually full employment You really do try to twist facts to suit your argument, rather like the so called "author" of the book in question. Pointedly, what cannot be disputed is that the baby boom generations are living longer, therefore the percentage of Muslims in the general population will not increase by any appreciable margin for many decades, however much it doesn't suit your agenda!
I used to be immortal |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 15 Dec 17 6.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by crystal balls
I'm afraid it is you that is mistaken and need to face the facts; the actual boom (or more accurately booms) in births in the UK actually occurred both pre and post war and again throughout the 60s. The birth rate fell in the late 70s and throughout the 80s. The reason that immigrants were encouraged in the 50s and 60s was that there was virtually full employment You really do try to twist facts to suit your argument, rather like the so called "author" of the book in question. Pointedly, what cannot be disputed is that the baby boom generations are living longer, therefore the percentage of Muslims in the general population will not increase by any appreciable margin for many decades, however much it doesn't suit your agenda!
For example. The world birth rate is currently falling but the world population will continue to rise for decades. The effect is not immediate but certain if trends remain the same. THe same is true of Europe pre mass migration.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| crystal balls The Garden of Earthly Delights 15 Dec 17 6.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
For example. The world birth rate is currently falling but the world population will continue to rise for decades. The effect is not immediate but certain if trends remain the same. THe same is true of Europe pre mass migration. I very much do understand how it works, perhaps you may have not understood (or chosen not to understand) my point? As an example; if one million people are born in the UK in a year and one million die, the population numbers are stable (discounting any immigration/emigration). If one million are born the next year but there are only 500,000 deaths, the population increases by 500,000. So, by older non-Muslims not dying in far greater number than there are Muslim children being born each year, the percentage of Muslims to non Muslims is quite likely to slightly fall even if the Muslim birthrate is higher than the non-Muslim rate.
I used to be immortal |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 15 Dec 17 7.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by crystal balls
I very much do understand how it works, perhaps you may have not understood (or chosen not to understand) my point? As an example; if one million people are born in the UK in a year and one million die, the population numbers are stable (discounting any immigration/emigration). If one million are born the next year but there are only 500,000 deaths, the population increases by 500,000. So, by older non-Muslims not dying in far greater number than there are Muslim children being born each year, the percentage of Muslims to non Muslims is quite likely to slightly fall even if the Muslim birthrate is higher than the non-Muslim rate.
Is this the part where you make a fool of yourself? Next up, the bit where you change your argument an then claim that is what you meant all along.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 15 Dec 17 7.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Is this the part where you make a fool of yourself? Next up, the bit where you change your argument an then claim that is what you meant all along.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| crystal balls The Garden of Earthly Delights 15 Dec 17 8.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Is this the part where you make a fool of yourself? Next up, the bit where you change your argument an then claim that is what you meant all along. Not really, no. Your previous post supports my assertion. If the world wide birthrate is falling, but world population will continue to increase for decades, as you posted, how can this possibly happen? There can only be one answer, by people not dying! Less people being born, but population increasing? Do you understand now? In the UK the people who are not dying are non-Muslims mostly, so no matter if Muslim births increase numerically, proportionally they will fall as far greater numbers of non-Muslims are not dying. Surely you can grasp that, it's not difficult!
I used to be immortal |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 15 Dec 17 8.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by crystal balls
Not really, no. Your previous post supports my assertion. If the world wide birthrate is falling, but world population will continue to increase for decades, as you posted, how can this possibly happen? There can only be one answer, by people not dying! Less people being born, but population increasing? Do you understand now? In the UK the people who are not dying are non-Muslims mostly, so no matter if Muslim births increase numerically, proportionally they will fall as far greater numbers of non-Muslims are not dying. Surely you can grasp that, it's not difficult! Yep. As I predicted. The changing the argument bit. Now pay attention. One more time. The population of Britain would have begun to fall without mass immigration and its effect on birthrate even though the population was still rising slowly. It is a delayed but inevitable reaction to a consistantly falling birthrate. 'White' people are still not having enough kids to sustain the population.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| crystal balls The Garden of Earthly Delights 16 Dec 17 3.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Yep. As I predicted. The changing the argument bit. Now pay attention. One more time. The population of Britain would have begun to fall without mass immigration and its effect on birthrate even though the population was still rising slowly. It is a delayed but inevitable reaction to a consistantly falling birthrate. 'White' people are still not having enough kids to sustain the population. You seem incapable of reading, let alone comprehending; my point has been consistent, you seem to want to change historical fact to support your erroneous argument! The birthrate in the UK was high in the late 40s, some of the 50s and throughout the 60s only started falling in the mid 70s, Muslim immigrants were not responsible for those high birthrates! If you were in possession of facts, you would also know that from 1960 to 1980 there was actually net emigration from the UK of over 1,000,000! The point that you and the author of the book miss completely is that people are living longer, which is the main factor in the population of the UK increasing over the next 40 years or so. People not dying will increase overall population in far greater numbers than Muslim births. In fact, births from non-Muslim immigrants overall will have a greater effect on population numbers than Muslim births! I work in financial services and have attended courses and sat exams on this and related topics, actuaries need to know these things in terms of future pension provision. You seem to know little about the subject and choose to change facts to suit your agenda, you couldn't be more wrong!
I used to be immortal |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 16 Dec 17 3.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by crystal balls
You seem incapable of reading, let alone comprehending; my point has been consistent, you seem to want to change historical fact to support your erroneous argument! The birthrate in the UK was high in the late 40s, some of the 50s and throughout the 60s only started falling in the mid 70s, Muslim immigrants were not responsible for those high birthrates! If you were in possession of facts, you would also know that from 1960 to 1980 there was actually net emigration from the UK of over 1,000,000! The point that you and the author of the book miss completely is that people are living longer, which is the main factor in the population of the UK increasing over the next 40 years or so. People not dying will increase overall population in far greater numbers than Muslim births. In fact, births from non-Muslim immigrants overall will have a greater effect on population numbers than Muslim births! I work in financial services and have attended courses and sat exams on this and related topics, actuaries need to know these things in terms of future pension provision. You seem to know little about the subject and choose to change facts to suit your agenda, you couldn't be more wrong! Jesus. Forget the book. This is accepted fact. Old people don't have kids. Therefore, living longer does not impact much on population increase in the long term. The overriding factor is the birth rate. No births, no people. Without new people replacing old ones the population drops over time. Think about it please. Do you understand now?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| crystal balls The Garden of Earthly Delights 17 Dec 17 2.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Jesus. Forget the book. This is accepted fact. Old people don't have kids. Therefore, living longer does not impact much on population increase in the long term. The overriding factor is the birth rate. No births, no people. Without new people replacing old ones the population drops over time. Think about it please. Do you understand now? An accepted fact only by those who don't understand the question; let me spell it out for the hard of thinking! If one million people are born in a year, and one million die, then population numbers remain the same, but if one million are born and only 500,000 die, population numbers increase by 500,000! Get in now? Population numbers are set to increase in the UK in future, mainly from people NOT DYING, not from a massive increase in births! Now do you get it? Maybe this will help you....
I used to be immortal |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.