web analytics

Population Replacement to Gather Pace

By ATWadmin On September 28th, 2007

Clearly, the project to drown the British people under a flood of immigrants and turn us into a minority in our own country isn’t going fast enough, according to the ruling establisment:

The number of people migrating to the UK each year will be 45,000 more than previously predicted, figures suggest. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) had estimated that the net increase in population due to migration would be 145,000 a year. But it has now revised that prediction upwards by about a third to an increase of 190,000 migrants per year over the next two decades.

This means, according to Sir Andrew Green of Migration Watch, that 86% of our population increase will now be due to immigration, which will add 7.2 million to our population between 2004 and 2031. We’ve long known that the commie internationalistas who wield power and influence hate our Kingdom. The intention to end the United Kingdom formally, by foreign takeover via the EU, has long been their obvious intent. But what is now undeniable is that they also intend to remove the British as a people too. Multiculturalism and diversity, always tools to undermine our history, heritage and birthrights, have now moved on to outright population replacement.

I do not want explanations from the Left. I want their apologies for the destruction of what, in living memeory, was the most civilised nation on earth and is now a conflicted, increasingly violent, Balkanised country of suspicious strangers.

34 Responses to “Population Replacement to Gather Pace”

  1. This should be put to the population in no uncertain terms: IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT?

    The answer, palatable or otherwise, should then be given effect.

  2. I did not see this in any manifesto of any political party. This is certainly NOT being done with the consent of the British people, because the leftist establishment wouldn’t get it: and that’s what it’s all about. The LibLabCon wants to replace the population of the UK!!

  3. Allan (or anyone else who believes this kooky theory of ‘population replacement’):

    Out of curiosity

    1) when do you claim this ‘population replacement’ project started?

    2) How many people have been replaced so far?

    3) How many are there left to replace?

  4. Frank, I asked the lefties who visit this site to deny that there is a huge wave of migration which, on current and increasing trends would render indigenous Britons a minority by 2050. There has been no reply from you or anyone else. The policy of uncontrolled immigration leads to population replacement, and it is deliberate. The left intends to replace the population of the UK. So Frank, why do you lefties want to do this?

    Immigration into this country is happening on a massive scale and without the consent of the people of the UK. One can attempt to calculate how many Britons have been aborted and how many migrants have entered as ‘replacements’ (the latter is actually not so easy as nobody has any idea how many illegals are here). If it is assumed that the rate of criminality of the migrants is the same as that of the indigenous population, then we know that nearly 20% of the prison population are foreigners: if their criminality rate is higher and the prison population does not serve as a basis for extrapolation to the composition of the population outside the prison, then one must ask why we are allowing criminals into the country unchecked. I would doubt that the criminality rate of migrants is less than that of the natives.
    Then on the important matter of health and disease, the increased rates of TB, Hepatitis B and C, and heterosexual HIV rates are driven solely by migrants and the policy of open access to migrants without health checks. When I recently visited India, I became aware that the Indian Govt does not allow anyone who passed through a region infected by yellow fever to set foot in the country without evidence of vaccination. And in the UK……nothing! This is Government policy.

  5. Allan,

    1) when do you claim this ‘population replacement’ project started?

    2) How many people have been replaced so far?

    3) How many are there left to replace?

  6. Frank:
    1. 1066
    2. Millions, including the entire cast of Cats and the late Peter Cook.
    3. One dude in Norway.

  7. Mahons,

    LOL!

    "Millions, including the entire cast of Cats and the late Peter Cook."

    What a dilemma you pose. I think though I would even suffer the return of the cast of Cats (I assume the cast is now Polish) if it meant we could get Peter Cook back.

  8. Frank,
    1) I would say that the population replacement program started as recently as 1997 with the election of Nulab although, of course, the policy was not stated in their manifesto. The reasons behind it were the unreliability of the indigenous working class who showed that they could be tempted to vote conservative, and the leftist dream of a single Europe without constituent nations and national loyalties.
    2) There have been over 6 millions abortions in this country which is to say 6 million indigenous Britons missing from our population. And now, in order to replace these losses, the left wants and has open borders for migrants. The number of migrants (non-Britons) and their offspring can only be estimated but 6 million is not far off.
    3) With the birth rate of the indigenous population below replacement and that of the migrants well above the rate needed to replace the natives, the indigenous Britons will be in a minority before 2050.

    So would the leftists explain why this policy of population replacement is a good thing?

  9. Frank: For Peter Cook I’d even attend a production of Cats. But just one.

  10. How many of these migrants would still come if they recieved no government benefits (or no government benefits until after five years of permenant residence or something of that nature)? One for YouGov perhaps?

  11. Allan,

    "I would say that the population replacement program started as recently as 1997 with the election of Nulab"

    There is much that is bizarre about your response but let’s start with this.

    Are you saying that everyone in the country in 1997 was part of the "indigenous population"?

    I am wondering what criteria you are using for "indigenous population" because most people I know consider items such as the nationality of the parents, place of birth, or residency but you are the only person I have met who deems none of those relevant. Indeed you seem to think that even non-resident Irish women were somehow aborting hypothetical "Britons". Although I do not know why you would consider that and ignore the billions of hypothetical "Britons" lost to contraception, masturbation and laws against rape. Nor am I sure how NuLab made all those right-wing, pro-life women have abortions, yet do not get the credit for all the births to "indigenous" teenage mothers and welfare recipients that I am sure you also claim they caused.

    I am also wondering why would NuLab want to "replace" the population that had just swept them to power in 1997, and again since, and shows every sign of doing so for a generation?

  12. As a fully-fledged member of the left, Frank queries the term ‘indigenous’ of Britons yet the left has no doubts as to the claims of the indigenous of Australia, as an example. To the left, there is no such thing as being indigenous to Britain, especially where whites are concerned. But I am as indigenous to this island as an aborigine is to Australia. Of course, not everyone in the Uk in 1997 was indigenous, but there was simply not the rate of immigration which there is now.
    On the question of abortion, those 6 million ‘hypotheticals’ were terminated real pregnancies and the material of these ‘hypotheticals’ was disposed of in a medical waste bin. Without the intervention of medical experts, these hypotheticals would most certainly have been real Britons, so the comparison with contraception and masturbation is nonsensical, though typical.
    The colonising migrants can be relied on to vote Nulab and can replace the less reliable indigenous working class.

  13. Allan,

    "As a fully-fledged member of the left, Frank"

    Are you able to make any claim which is not false?

    "On the question of abortion, those 6 million ‘hypotheticals’ were terminated real pregnancies"

    Pregancies aren’t Britons. Similarly contraception kills real gametes, and those aren’t Britons either.

    "the material of these ‘hypotheticals’ was disposed of in a medical waste bin"

    Or a kleenex.

    "Without the intervention of medical experts, these hypotheticals would most certainly have been real Britons"

    Even the ones that wouldn’t have resulted in a live birth, and even the ones that would have been born in Ireland. And presumably even the Poles and the Arabs.

    I see you dodged the point about the births to teenage mothers, among other omissions in your response. Instead you have chosen once more to focus on your laughable theory that when a right wing pro-life woman aborts, a government policy made her do it.

  14. Allan -how many of the colonising migrants came from former (wait for it) British colonies?

  15. Frank, I’ll put one question to you and I’d hope that you answer it given that I posted answers to your questions above.
    Do you consider the rate and nature of immigration to the UK to be beneficial and sustainable? If so, why?

  16. Allan, I’m not sure the idea is replacement as such. It seems to me the rationale is to dilute the feeling of ‘Englishness’ or ‘Welshness’ or even ‘Britishness’ as perhaps you and I would conceive it. At the same time anyone have such feelings would feel demoralised. This would then make the furtherance of the ‘EU project’ that much easier. Did you by any chance watch the video I referred to in a comment on a previous post? It’s about a ‘charity’ called ‘Common Purpose’. I’d recommend watching it. All will then become clear. My browser doesn’t appear to let me post the link. Search for Common Purpose in Google video. It’s the 1 hour 56 minute presentation by Brian Gerrish.

    Regarding the vexed question of what qualifies someone as being indigenous I’d ask Frank if he considers the Native Americans as being indigenous. If not why not and if so what makes them different from the ethnic English. I’d also refer him to this:

    http://ukcommentators.blogspot.com/2007/09/un-declaration-of-indigenous-rights-of.html

  17. GA,

    As an American, I was unfamiliar with the term "indigenous Britons," so I looked it up here.

    As the Roman empire began to collapse, its political and military presence was finally withdrawn from the island of Britain around 410 AD. The resulting vacuum was filled by tribes of Jutes, Saxons, Frisians and Angles from Denmark, Germany and the coastal areas of what is now Holland, competing for land and power with the indigenous Britons (the term "Saxons" will be used, generically, to denote any or all of these invading tribes from northern Europe).

    So, it seems that indigenous Britons would be anyone living in Britain after the Romans left in 410 and before all the Europeans arrived. That would be the same as our indigenous American population before 1492.

    Anyone out there able to trace their genealogy back to pre-Anglo-Saxon times?

  18. GA, it may not be the intention but it is the result and it cannot have escaped the ruling political clique.
    Good question to Frank but don’t hope for an answer.

  19. So, Alan, are you therefore denying that the British exist as a distinct ethnic group? If not, what is your point?

  20. Alan, are whites indigenous to anywhere?

  21. FR,

    My point is nothing more than to define indigenous Briton and compare it to indigenous American as (I thought) someone had asked the question. What I would further observe from the above is that here in America we have had a fairly steady influx of Europeans since 1492 as you have since 410. I for one am not complaining (since I only arrived in 1950 myself).

  22. Allan,

    "Frank, I’ll put one question to you and I’d hope that you answer it given that I posted answers to your questions above."

    Very well, while my first thought was to answer yours in the same style and spirit that you answered mine, I will instead post a sensible response that doesn’t rest on falsehoods.

    "Do you consider the rate and nature of immigration to the UK to be beneficial and sustainable? "

    Beneficial to who? The ability for all of us to work as we please in Europe is beneficial to many (certainly beneficial to me) and probably neutral overall.

    Sustainable? The current situation is like a weather system with high and low pressure zones – the winds will blow and it will level off on its own. Having said that I don’t have any real issue with immigration controls – but they should be at EU borders for as long as the UK is a member of the EU.

    By the way, I never heard the Brits objecting to being allowed to go elsewhere, despite being widely considered to be a pain in the ass wherever they wash up. I even met a Brit who had emigrated to Spain to drive taxis, complaining that it was too hot. Not too hot that day, mind – the country.

  23. GA,

    "Regarding the vexed question of what qualifies someone as being indigenous I’d ask Frank if he considers the Native Americans as being indigenous."

    Believe it or not I get through the day without once wondering if anybody is "indigenous" to anywhere. It is difficult to imagine a less useful question. But the Native Americans would have been indigenous before the Europeans arrived I guess.

    The person you should ask is Allan@Oslo. Allan@Oslo used the term indigenous Britons so I asked him what he meant by it. I knew it had to be an unusual usage when he claimed that Irish women were travelling to the UK in order to abort the indigenous population since 1997 at the behest of New Labour. Perhaps he will answer you if you ask as he did not answer me.

  24. Beneficial to the recipient population, Frank, and sustainable in terms of not destroying the cohesion of the host country.

    "I will instead post a sensible response that doesn’t rest on falsehoods."

    Please list the falsehoods.

  25. "Allan@Oslo used the term indigenous Britons so I asked him what he meant by it. "

    I’m sure that I said that I am as indigenous to these islands as an aborigine is to Australia. A very difficult nut for the left to crack.

  26. For the record Allan we don’t find you that difficult, but you got the nut part right.

  27. Allan,

    "I’m sure that I said that I am as indigenous to these islands as an aborigine is to Australia."

    So if an Irish woman travelled to Australia and had an abortion would you say she was aborting the indigenous aborigine population, as part of a deliberate policy of the Australian (or possibly the Irish) government?

    Similarly if an Australian woman had an abortion in Sydney would you say she was taking part in a program to replace the aborigine population, and that it was a deliberate policy of the Australian government? After all that is the claim you would make re indigenous Britons if the same Australian woman did so in London.

  28. I think it is plain barking mad to believe that the liberalisation of abortion laws is somehow deliberately tied in with a comprehensive policy to replace the traditional native population. Neither do I believe that immigration policy is also by malicious design liberalised in order to facilitate that replacement. There are a mixture of largely benign reasons for it, many of which are to do with fear of being viewed as ‘racist’ if restrictions are imposed.

  29. It’s not population or race replacement. Its cultural replacement, the creation of an ultimately malleable mass of people with no sense of culture, roots or nationhood. The perfect population for the EU to rule over, in other words.

  30. DSD, that’s exactly what’s happening. Some areas are further along the path than others. Previous periods of, modest, levels of immigration resulted in fairly successful assimilation into British culture. I doubt very much if that will be the case this time, which as you say isn’t the idea anyway. That feeling of ‘we’ no longer exists.

  31. DSD, I’m on a bit of a learning curve at the moment regarding the EU. After watching the ‘Common Purpose video I referred to the other day I’ve been reading stuff on http://eutruth.org.uk/ this evening. I’d be interested in your thoughts on it. They paint a pretty grim picture. Is it really that bad?

  32. Colm, it’s not about the abortion laws as such but rather the cumulative effects of them because it is a fact that more than 6 million abortions have taken place in the UK. This means 6 million fewer natives and, with several millions of non-British incomers (both legal and illegal), the net effect is replacement of Britons to such a point that people of British origin will be a minority before 2050.

    However, if immigration were stopped and illegals repatriated, then the demographic effects of abortion in the UK would be greatly reduced. For an example of the demographic effects of abortion on a country, look at Russia where abortions probably outnumber births.

  33. It’s morning in America. I’ve been busy preparing for a family reunion, but I wanted to come back and look at these comments regarding my Friday, September 28, 2007 at 09:04PM:

    So, Alan, are you therefore denying that the British exist as a distinct ethnic group? If not, what is your point?
    Friday, September 28, 2007 at 09:22PM | Unregistered CommenterThe Fulham Reactionary

    Alan, are whites indigenous to anywhere?
    Friday, September 28, 2007 at 09:25PM | Unregistered CommenterAllan@OsloI already told Fulham Reactionary what I was trying to do with my Friday, September 28, 2007 at 09:04PM comment, but I think the above questions broaden the discussion (especially in light of the fact that Allan@Oslo has introduced a variation on indigenous Britons, namely "people of British origin.")

    The three elements I see are geography, time and immigration. Pick a spot (e.g., Australia) and a time (e.g., January 26, 1788) when immigration began, and, by definition, everyone who lived on the spot before the date (and all of their descendants) is an indigenous person. Also by definition, everyone else is an immigrant or the descendant of immigrants.

    Introducing a new term like British origin does not change the equation, because we must still return to 410 to determine that origin. If you want to keep the spot the same and change the date, give a rationale. 1492 works for America. 1788 works for Australia. What (other than 410) works for Britain (and why)?

    Now to try to address the concerns of FR and A@O:

    Q: Alan, are you therefore denying that the British exist as a distinct ethnic group?
    A: No. Any descendant of the pre-410 Britons is a member of the ethnic group called "indigenous Britons."

    Q:If not, what is your point?
    A:The points I have made in this and my earlier reply to your question, namely, pick a spot and a time and presto, you have defined "indigenous [fill in the blank]."

    Q:Alan, are whites indigenous to anywhere?
    A:Yes. Using the definition provided, the spot and time are irrespective of the racial makeup of the residents, therefore "whites" can be as indigenous as "blacks" or any other color you choose.

  34. Wherever the racial group evolved and settled are the lands to which that group is indigenous hence: whites are indigenous to Europe; blacks to sub-Saharan Africa, orientals to China, Korea and Japan; American Indians to the Americas etc etc. From this, it is evident that whites are NOT indigenous to Australia and the Americas and blacks are NOT indigenous to Europe or the Americas.