Turkey’s back on the menu

Posted by Angry Beard on July 27, 2010, 07:46 PM | #

Don’t worry Dan.
Although Cameron has just shown his true colours ( a complete fucking idiot - a big fuck-up is likely sometime in his premiership), the Germans won’t allow Turkey’s EU entry.
Mark my words, Yurkey will NEVER join the EU, the Germans just won’t allow it.Period.
The French might be the EU puppet-masters, but the Germans quitely carry the big stick.

Posted by Dasein on July 27, 2010, 08:14 PM | #

I’d made this comment a while back about a speech Gates made in London, where he blamed France and Germany for pushing Turkey “eastwards.” I called it one of Fred’s dots.  I’d also made this comment about the original motivation of the German Gastarbeiter program being the appeasing of Nato allies.  For that, we’re still missing one dot to get us back to the US (and it might turn up in German government documents at some point), but based on the geopolitical situation at the time, it’s certainly not unlikely that this was done, even if partially, at the behest of the US.  Now, if we look at the ethnic group that has exerted great influence on US foreign policy (especially the mass propanda side of things), it seems that we’re at least part way to Fred’s position, even if some of the lines connecting those dots are somewhat faint and the precise influence at the jewish end node unclear.  To be sure, there are many other factors at work here, but I think there’s a tendency among some European nationalists (I’m not referring to Dan here, or anyone in particular) to miss the role played by jews in the current crisis.  Many can agree that dots should be connected.  Fred’s lines are just heavier than some peoples’, and the jewish terminal node is bigger.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 27, 2010, 08:24 PM | #

“For many Europeans, if not most, the demise of the Atlanticist era cannot come soon enough.” (—from the log entry)

See what I mean, CC?  The way he words it, you’d think normal white Americans, you and I and James Bowery and Ben Tillman and The Narrator and DanielJ, all want Turkey in the E.U.  The way he words it you’d think our country hasn’t been taken over by what Takuan Seiyo calls the pod people from the invasion of the body snatchers who, disguised as normal Americans, are pressuring Europe to admit Turkey to the E.U.  The way he words it you’d think a gordian worm hasn’t gotten into our national central nervous system, directing our self-destructive moves and those destructive of our co-racialists abroad.  In fact, the way he words it you’d think a gordian worm hasn’t gotten into his own country’s central nervous system explaining why they suddenly have politicians like Tony Blair, Gordian Brown, and David Cameron in the first place — Double-D thinks normal Britishers living under a normal, untakenover national central nervous system would actually want men like this ruling them, and he flips if, lacking self-incriminating admissions of guilt by the chief culprits, we endeavor as best we can to connect the dots and find out what in the fuck is going on, flips because you’re “speculating instead of citing facts discoverable on paper” which of course you must do until you have the power to call each and every culprit into the dock to give a full accounting of his behavior which power you’re not likely to be granted any time soon.  That’s all because Double-D is one of these European anti-Americans I talked about in the other thread — the basically lefty types without a clue. 

Anyone with half-a-brain wouldn’t have worded it that way.  But that’s Double-D for ya.  Ya just have to take that into account with him.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 27, 2010, 08:29 PM | #

I posted my comment above before seeing Dasein’s which I completely agree with, both letter and spirit.  Das, you’re treading on thin ice there:  Double-D doesn’t approve of anyone engaging in dot-connecting:  he demands it all be documented on paper which hell will freeze over first before we get that, so I’m all for dot-connecting as best we can.  And besides, Double-D thinks “we’re doing it to ourselves.” So, watch out, comrade!  Posts like that risk arousing his ire.  No dot-connecting!

Posted by PF on July 27, 2010, 08:45 PM | #

Double-D’s being called out by the Scroob…

<...the saloon goes silent...>

Posted by Graham_Lister on July 27, 2010, 08:48 PM | #

Cameron - typical of our duplicitous political class; a “chinless” wonder if there ever was one.

Posted by Dan Dare on July 27, 2010, 08:54 PM | #

In the final analysis it scarcely matters for Europeans whether the obsessive compulsion on the part of the US to procure Turkey’s accession to the EU is the work of a few mystery men behind the curtain, or whether it is an expression of the earnest wish of normal white Americans like Fred.*

The imperative for Europe is to insulate itself from the influences that result in such interference, and the only practicable way in which that can be accomplished is to allow the inevitable decline of the Atlanticist credo to run its natural course. That will entail political and military disengagement over an extended period of time, as well as the marginalising of so-called ‘Eurosceptics’ like Cameron and his ilk.

*I don’t actually believe that the latter care much one way or another about Turkey or the EU. Normal white Americans seem to yearn for nothing if not a return to Lindberghian isolationism. Self-styled pan-europeanists like Fred are part of a very tiny minority.

Posted by Graham_Lister on July 27, 2010, 08:58 PM | #

H.E.R.R. “The Fall of Constantinople”

Does Cameron know ANYTHING about history?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaBdA88BV08

Posted by Gorboduc on July 27, 2010, 09:04 PM | #

I’m not taking any sides on this one, Fred, DD., beyond saying that “Atlantacist” seems to me to smack of NATO, and we needen’t be too bothered about that organisation, and that US WNs should support the Euro ones and vice versa, and I hope that if ever I said I was anti-American it would be understood as only meaning anti-Obama, anti the Israel lobby and anti the Special Relationship . . .

but when I heard asrehole Cameron on the R4 news I started spitting blood around the kitchen.

Well I don’t think they NEED join the EU: they’ve established enough dominance over here quite happily without it.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23770522-heroin-wars-loan-sharks-and-executions-the-turkish-gangs-terrorising-north-london.do

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/turkish-gangs-muscling-in-on-heroin-trade-1322026.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2284780.stm

http://gangsinlondon.blogspot.com/2002_11_01_archive.html

http://www.policeoracle.com/news/Violent-Turkish-Gangs-On-Londons-Streets_20584.html

And of course it goes further back than that.

http://mostaqueali.blogspot.com/2010/02/jewish-takeover-of-ottoman-turkey-in.html

I love the way Cameron talks of ANGER as if were of the righteous sort.

Posted by Gorboduc on July 27, 2010, 09:16 PM | #

Graham: well, Cameron probably does know a bit of history AND he’s got at least one professional historian in his stable like JOHN REDWOOD, one of whose tory word-pictures I submit:

http://whatenglandmeanstome.co.uk/?p=38

but despite this stunning and tear-jerking bit of pastiche I don’t suppose Cameron or Redwood or any of the tories would turn a hair if St. Paul’s was turned into a supa-mosque with Westminster Abbey being turned into a giant halal slaughterama.

And there’s this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1816451.ece

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 27, 2010, 09:20 PM | #

In October MR published an opinion piece questioning the suitability of Turkey for membership in the E.U., written by a Frenchman — admittedly of part-Greek extraction, which is possible grounds for less-than-perfect objectivity on the subject of Turkey but you can be the judge:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_ankara_candidacy/

Posted by Dan Dare on July 27, 2010, 09:29 PM | #

@Dasein: I wonder if you’re getting the timeline slightly garbled with respect to the imputation that Jewish influence upon US foreign caused pressure to be applied to admit Turkish (or Italian) guestworkers.

As I recall the guestworker scheme, the bilateral agreements that created the flows were initiated in the mid-50s to the early 60s, which seems to me to significantly predate the emergence of Jewish influence as a critical factor in US foreign policy.

I’m not disputing that US support for (even pressure for) the programme may be have been a factor, although all the [public] evidence indicates that it was an entirely self-inflicetd imposition, it just seems to require too many dots to finger the Jews with this specific episode.

Posted by notuswind on July 27, 2010, 09:30 PM | #

*I don’t actually believe that the latter care much one way or another about Turkey or the EU. Normal white Americans seem to yearn for nothing if not a return to Lindberghian isolationism.

Not quite, there are more than a few White Americans who openly fantasize about the destruction of Islamic countries like Turkey.  Isolationists they are not.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 27, 2010, 10:49 PM | #

Meanwhile Dave’s Business Secretary has called for an end to the immigration cap.  We just can’t get by without more of those professionally super Indians, apparently:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7912959/Conservative-immigration-cap-under-threat-from-Liberal-Democrats.html#dsq-content

Vince doesn’t have an awful lot of support on the thread.  I got in with a comment first, and the tone didn’t get a whole lot friendlier for Vince.

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 27, 2010, 10:55 PM | #

Normal white Americans seem to yearn for nothing if not a return to Lindberghian isolationism.

Not sure what a “normal” white American is, however, there never was a consensus of yearning for isolation prior to WWII, especially in the South. And the recent renditions of the last verse of The Star-Spangled Banner at Tea Party events rather seems to confirm this view.

O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave

Posted by Dan Dare on July 27, 2010, 11:18 PM | #

Re Dave: it gets worse.

… PM responds to fears that proposed immigration cap will harm trade links with New Delhi with new ‘spirit of humility’

Cameron to offer India direct say in UK immigration policy

Posted by jamesUK on July 28, 2010, 12:08 AM | #

@Gorboduc

These Turkish networks where created by MI5/6 intelligence and work in full compliance with them mainly to fuel and finance our proxy war in Russia’s North Caucasus hence Cameron’s insistence of integrating Turkey into the EU as it is the only country due to its location that can transit oil and gas pipelines that can bypass Russia for EU empires future energy needs.

It is why we are in Afghan starting in 79 as a launching pad to secure Europe and Asia’s future energy development needs to power there economies under US/British control and the real objective of why we are in Afghanistan to covertly train Central Asian, Russian and Chinese Islamic terrorist who we are bring into Pakistan and training Islamic militants in Waziristan province financed by the Afghan opium trade to destabilise Central Asia justifying US/NATO intervention

Afghan heroin trade into Russia organised by crime bosses in the US.

“We have identified several people who live in the U.S. and organize the trafficking of drugs from Afghanistan to Russia. We have passed this information on to the appropriate U.S. entities and we are waiting for confirmation,” Russia’s drug chief, Viktor Ivanov, told an international anti-drug forum in Moscow.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100610/159377545.html

Afghan drug traffic aids terrorists in N. Caucasus - drugs official

http://en.rian.ru/world/20100609/159354900.html

Kosovo connection

Drug dealers from the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia could be the organizers of Afghanistan’s drug industry, while Kosovo criminal groups have become the core drug dealer in the Euroepan Union, according to Russian special services.

Moscow insists that the UN Security Council qualify “the phenomenal production of opium in Afghanistan as a threat to international security,” Federal Drug Control Service head Viktor Ivanov said in an interview, published by the Kommersant daily on Thursday.

Since Western troops, except the U.S contingent, are deployed in Afghanistan under a mandate, extended by the UN Security Council each year, their further presence in Afghanistan must be “tied to the condition that these forces will start combating the drug industry,” he said.

Russia will not send troops to Afghanistan and it opposes plans to increase the foreign military contingent, he said. “More troops, less stability,” he added.

Russia suffers from Afghan heroin more than other countries, and it is a country that consumes, not transits Afghan drugs, Ivanov said

Noting that Turkish groups had recently been the leading drug sellers in the European Union, Ivanov said, “the role of leader has been confidently taken over by the so-called Republic of Kosovo, to be more exact, by Kosovo criminal groups. All of my police colleagues in the European Union confirm that.”

http://slobodan-milosevic.org/news/rcmn070209.htm

Posted by Graham_Lister on July 28, 2010, 12:49 AM | #

Oh yes Cameron is first rate on history????

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iVNHhT57CitRhWFS-3Q1aw5a_cow

Posted by Veritas on July 28, 2010, 12:59 AM | #

Of course the part Jew David Cameron wants Turkey to enter the EU.  They want to flood Europe with even more mongrels for (1) blood poisoning White Europeans and (2) cheap labor to undermine White workers.

Posted by Gudmund on July 28, 2010, 02:05 AM | #

which seems to me to significantly predate the emergence of Jewish influence as a critical factor in US foreign policy.
>Dan Dare

The Franklin D Roosevelt administration of 1933-1945 was heavily Jewish at the highest levels and was comprised of many Marxist-Leninist ideologues.  FDR and his administration did everything in their power to maneuver the US into war with the Axis on false premises.  It seems to me that Jewish influence was “a critical factor” in US foreign policy at least from that time, if not earlier. 

I say “if not earlier” because it is hard to know just when political favors began to be bought by New York City financiers of a certain Levantine persuasion but it is reasonable to assume that, if the presidency was bought by 1933, the influence began some time before that.  Especially in light of the US decision to meddle in European affairs in WWI.  You see, this was not “the will of the people” at that time either, as evidenced by the fact that the Democrats who orchestrated the involvement in that fiasco were voted out resoundingly in the war’s aftermath.

It does not do to brush off the possibility of significant early Jewish influence via capital as “a conspiracy theory” when events seemed to move so fortuitously in their favor ...

Posted by jamesUK on July 28, 2010, 03:10 AM | #

Turkey’s integration into the EU has nothing to do with a Jewish agenda in fact it is the WASP or should I say non-Jewish WASP establishment section of the Obama administration that it pushing the pro-Turkish line.

@Gudmund

FDR was anti-British empire and manoeuvres for participation for intervention in WW2 was because he knew that the axis powers of Britain and France were pushing Japan and Germany towards against the USSR.

Posted by Lurker on July 28, 2010, 03:26 AM | #

Greece will never allow Turkey to join the EU.

However with the state of Greek finances now, who knows, a crisis too good to waste.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 28, 2010, 03:31 AM | #

Excellent rejoinder by Gudmund, a few above.

Posted by Dan Dare on July 28, 2010, 04:20 AM | #

The Franklin D Roosevelt administration of 1933-1945 was heavily Jewish at the highest levels - Gudmund

However, I’m uncertain that the Eisenhower administration - which was in effect at the time the Gastarbeiter scheme commenced in West Germany - was so inclined.

We should recall that the Gastarbeiter agreements were roughly contemporaneous (in fact somewhat predated) the 1956 Suez Crisis in which the US came down as heavily on Israeli regional adventurism as it did upon Anglo-French neo-colonialism.

It is often forgotten that during the 1950s US foreign policy was overwhelmingly concerned with curbing Soviet influence within the so-called unaligned states and, as a consequence, identified itself with the cause of decolonisation and especially Arab nationalism to an extent that seems extraordinary today. Certainly in the 1950s US policy towards Israel was guarded to say the least.

None of this speaks to an especially strong influence at the time exercised by domestic Jewry on US foreign policy. That would, I suggest, come somewhat later, during the Nixon era.

Posted by Lurker on July 28, 2010, 04:52 AM | #

Turkey can be a great unifier. Because instead of choosing between East and West, Turkey has chosen both. And it’s this opportunity to unite East and West that gives Turkey such an important role with countries in the region in helping to deliver improved security for us all.

Good grief.

To state the obvious, the man is either a fucktard or a traitor, quite possibly both.

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 28, 2010, 06:39 AM | #

Certainly in the 1950s US policy towards Israel was guarded to say the least.

Really?

Extract from Cabinet Conclusions
SECRET

[Ottawa], May 10th, 1956

Present

* The Prime Minister (Mr. St-Laurent) in the Chair,
* The Minister of Trade and Commerce and Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe),
* The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner),
* The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin),
* The Minister of National Revenue (Dr. McCann),
* The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg),
* The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson),
* The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson),
* The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters),
* The Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris),
* The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham),
* The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair),
* The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney),
* The Leader of the Government in the Senate and Solicitor General (Senator Macdonald),
* The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill),
* The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage),
* The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler),
* The Secretary to the Cabinet (Mr. Bryce),
* The Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet (Mr. Martin),
* The Economic Adviser, Privy Council Office, (Mr. Lamontagne),

. . .

EXPORT OF ARMS TO ISRAEL; MEDITERRANEAN SITUATION;
PROGRESS REPORT
(PREVIOUS REFERENCE APRIL 26)

The Minister had discussed the Middle East situation with Mr. Dulles. The U.S. Secretary of State had fully realized that the shipment of F-86 aircraft to Israel would raise a difficult problem for Canada, but his view was that the time had come to give more aid in the air to Israel. The U.S. government was not ready yet to send arms because it wanted to maintain its position as a possible mediator between the two parties; moreover it did not intend to participate in an arms race with Russia. However, other countries, like Canada, were in a position to help Israel without challenging the U.S.S.R. The U.S. government found it difficult to maintain an impartial attitude because the Jews were using all their influence within the U.S. in favour of Israel. Meanwhile, the U.S. government was making plans to ensure that Israel would be adequately defended at a few minutes notice if attacked by the Arab countries.

France had already sold 12 Mystères to Israel. Both the United States and the United Kingdom were urging Canada to send 12 F-86s but this could not be revealed.

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/department/history-histoire/dcer/details-en.asp?intRefid=2785

Posted by Angry Beard on July 28, 2010, 06:56 AM | #

Vince Cable was married to an Indian woman and has chi-chi* children.

I used to like and respect Vince Cable - now I respect him as much as the last piece of andrex I used to wipe my arse.

*
Hindi for ‘fie!’ - the name Indians gave to eurasians.

Posted by Angry Beard on July 28, 2010, 07:05 AM | #

In other word Cameron is prostituting British immigration policy - in exchange for some imagined ‘trade concessions’.
The Indians play a very dirty hand with greedy and stupid westerners eager to get a piece of ‘Indian pie’ (actually my belief is that India is not another China and it’s all built on sand).Basically the deal is Indians equate the dumping of excess Indians in western nations with trade in goods!
- Unfortunately they’re getting away with it.

Posted by Anonymous on July 28, 2010, 07:50 AM | #

For many Europeans, if not most, the demise of the Atlanticist era cannot come soon enough.

Yeah, we all know that if it wasn’t for the evil American Empire there would be no threat of Turkey joining the EU… I guess everyone needs someone else to blame for their own failings.

By the time that the US falls and the Atlanticist era comes to an end England and Europe will have fallen as well.  All are on similar trajectories.  In fact, much of Western Europe may fall sooner than the US.  Hopefully, however, white Americans can take advantage of the vastness of their country and carve out their own ethnostate in the aftermath of the collapse.

Posted by Anonymous on July 28, 2010, 08:16 AM | #

According to Arthur Kemp Britain has merely 20 years before the point of no return is reached:

http://www.whitenewsnow.com/forums/british-national-party-nick-griffin-victory/1468-arthur-kemp-says-20-years-before-point-no-return.html

Posted by Dasein on July 28, 2010, 09:03 AM | #

According to Anonymous’ link, Kemp said this:

“Already more than 50 percent of all live births in Britain are from Third World origin immigrants.

I would like to know the basis for this claim.  In this comment, I’d estimated it to be around 25%.  Still 25% too high, but it makes me question Kemp’s scenario.

Dan, the ONS recently released some data saying that by 2050 the ethnic population would be only 20%.  Seems very different from Kemp’s projection.  It doesn’t mention the more frightening percentages, namely the % of non-white or non-British children being born, but it would still seem to leave the door open for a democratic solution.  If that 20% were true, the situation would not appear quite as dire as some have suggested.  What do you make of that?  BTW, I’ve got the microcensus results for Germany, just need to summarise them and will put up a new blog entry.

Posted by Dasein on July 28, 2010, 09:13 AM | #

Correction: my 25% was non-whites, regardless of immigration status.  This 50% births to immigrants, which Kemp mentions, only applies to London, as I remember.  And while Poles aren’t English, I certainly wouldn’t consider them 3rd worlders.

Posted by Leon Haller on July 28, 2010, 11:20 AM | #

To British here:

I don’t understand Cameron. Is he evil, or just stupid? I had an instantaneous negative reaction to this goon as soon as he rose to international prominence. Do most Britons want Turkey in the EU? What is his motivation?

On another note: yes, the US is playing a malign role in this, strongly pushing EU accession (mainly for US Empire reasons, though still idiotic). But why the lurch towards blaming Jews? Turkey is rapidly becoming Islamicized - and is increasingly hostile to Israel. Why automatically suppose the Jews would still want Turkey in the EU? I can see ethnic reasons certainly, but my point is that not everything over here occurs because of Jews.

Finally, while I would like to see Europe racially awakened, even at the cost of chillier relations with the US, ideally what we need to build is “white pride, worldwide”, as Stormfront has it. You Europeans may well require the US on your side if and when the great war against Dar al-Islam finally arrives (and it had better arrive, or you will surely become refugees in your own homelands).

Posted by Dasein on July 28, 2010, 01:52 PM | #

Desmond, is this the book that you had recommended a while back on jewish activism in racial science?  I thought I’d bookmarked it, but can’t find it now.

Posted by Angry Beard on July 28, 2010, 02:47 PM | #

No, Dasein, Arthur Kemp is right and you are wrong.
Latest British government statistics tell us that 25% of all births in the UK (not just England, mind you) are to foreign-born mothers.
There are AT LEAST as many second and third generation non-White mothers as there are foreign born.I know the 25% figure includes White foreign women, but they are only a small minority of mothers.
Add to the fact of the huge rate of miscengenation (mostly White British women with negroes) in Britain.
The 50% figure of Kemp is the right one.
The university study giving the 20% in 2050 figure is utter, utter worthless trash and smacks of covert government propaganda - apparently swallowed by the gullible.The same people told us ‘only 30,000’ Poles wanted to enter Britain. Sigh.

Posted by Angry Beard on July 28, 2010, 02:55 PM | #

Dasein,
Google the ‘Daily Mail’ of 22 July 2010 for confirmation of the ‘25%’ figure.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 28, 2010, 03:26 PM | #

AB: The 50% figure of Kemp is the right one.

The method:

1. Create a special new sin of “racism”.  Redefine national feeling and peoplehood among Europeans as “racism”, and demand “equality” as repentance.

2. Attack European genes by (i) attacking European society, tradition and culture with more “isms”, (ii) mass immigration of negros to deracinate the Europeans and North Africans and Asians to colonise their towns and cities (Mestizos in the States).

3. Exclude all protest from the European arena by controlling the media and the political process.

4. Propagandize and diseducate Europeans, provide bread and circuses, maximise tax burden.

5. Dismantle the nation state, invest power in regional and global structures, build the security apparatus, conduct wars as resource competition.

The goal:

For global elites: permanent global hegemony.
For internationalists: wealth, power, influence.
For leftists: psychological release.
For Jews: the Age of Messiac.
For negros and others: rape and revenge.

Time, patience, money.  Together they can achieve anything, even something as evil as this.

Posted by notuswind on July 28, 2010, 03:43 PM | #

Add to the fact of the huge rate of miscengenation (mostly White British women with negroes) in Britain.

I’ve read this sort of statement all over the nationalist web recently, about how the rate of miscegenation in the U.K. is skyrocketing beyond belief.

Imagine my confusion when I looked at the official government statistics that were published in 2005.

Either that figure has dramatically changed in a short period of time or young people aren’t getting married anymore when they settle down with each other.  Neither of these possibilities seem all that likely to me.

Posted by Dasein on July 28, 2010, 04:58 PM | #

No, Kemp is exaggerating.  I will create a main blog entry to discuss this.  I was going to create one back when I’d written that comment, but I didn’t want to undermine the BNP’s election bid in any way.

Posted by Dan Dare on July 28, 2010, 04:59 PM | #

@Dasein: Kemp is an idiot. He still maintains that the R1b haplotype and thus the bulk of the population of western Europe is descended from the autochthonous hunter-gatherers who emerged from the Franco-cantabrian refugium in the paleolithic. 

His demographic projections are worthless.

Have you seen David Coleman’s paper on the ‘Third Transition’ which covers not just the UK but also several countries in western Europe? A powerpoint version can be viewed here. The full article is behind the paywall at Wiley Intersciences but I have it on file and can email if you wish (it’s about 50 pages). If you have access to Jstor you can retrieve it from there too.

In my view Coleman’s projections are the most sensible and plausible since they account for all the important variables and don’t relay upon unreasonable assumptions or stray data points. The prognosis per Coleman is certainly dire but not as apocalyptic as some would claim. If we are to be persuasive in discussing these matters we need to be more dispassionate and analytical and learn to ignore swivel-eyed fanatics ideologues like Arthur Kemp.

Posted by Dan Dare on July 28, 2010, 05:49 PM | #

I don’t understand Cameron. Is he evil, or just stupid? I had an instantaneous negative reaction to this goon as soon as he rose to international prominence. Do most Britons want Turkey in the EU? What is his motivation?  - Leon Haller]

The motivation, crudely put, is to ingratiate himself with the comptrollers of the so-called ‘special relationship’.  He is the latest of a long line of British politicians in the Atlanticist tradition, believers in the doctrine of managed decline, who see Britain’s role not as an equal partner in a New Europe, but rather as a submissive gimp to a virile and expansionist America. To prosper in such a role, a subject must be prepared to indulge in all sorts of unnatural and unpleasant acts.

One such necessary act is to demonstrate complete obesiance to the master’s wishes when it comes to dealing with third parties such as Serbia, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan or, in the current instance, Turkey. Consequently Cameron, just as Blair before him, has adopted the so-called ‘Strategic Argument’ for Turkey’s accession, long promoted by successive US Administrations, and slavishly recited by the US and its lackeys.

The following is a succinct summary of the ‘Strategic Argument’; the last sentence acknowledges that Turkey is not and can never be an integral part of Europe.

… Another peculiarity that makes Turkish accession different from past rounds of enlargement is its almost exclusive justification by strategic considerations alone. Turkey is touted to the European public as a state whose membership would considerably increase the EU’s potential as a strategic actor in global politics. This could be in its function as a “bridge” to or a “model” for the Islamic world that would greatly enhance the chances for avoiding a clash of civilization. Its role could also be that of a pivotal state in the future development of the Greater Middle East, including a possible role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Another asset connected to Turkey’s EU membership is its strategic location with respect to Europe’s future energy supplies from the Middle East and, more importantly, from the Caspian region. And last but not least, Turkish membership is expected to make a fundamental contribution in turning the Eastern Mediterranean area into a zone of enhanced security. Even with regard to domestic security issues, Turkey is advocated by some as a perfect model for the development of a “Euro-Islam” that could contribute to the alleviation of domestic tensions between Muslim and non-Muslim populations in certain EU member states. In contrast to such arguments, there are hardly any references to potential economic or identity-related advantages that may be tied to Turkey’s accession. Turkey is expected neither to greatly enhance the EU’s wealth or welfare nor to make an important contribution to the “reunification of Europe.”

from: Heinz Kramer, “Whither Turkey’s Accession?”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 28, 2010, 06:07 PM | #

“The prognosis per Coleman is certainly dire” (—DD)

How dire?  I realize it’s a 50-page article but could you summarize just the conclusion in a sentence or two?  That first page alone, available at your Wiley Intersciences link in your last comment, is bracing stuff to read.  Notice by the way how the normal thing, on reading a report such as that first page represents, one issued by an Oxford University professor of Demographics no less, the completely normal thing for everyone reading that would have been for all to discuss the matter soberly, certainly no name calling like “racist!”, then decide if they wanted that demographic “transition” to take place, and if not, adjust immigration policy accordingly.  But that’s not what happened.  What happened was government viciously slandered all who would have wished to have a perfectly normal, sober discussion of it, shouted them down, muzzled them, threatened them, punished them, damaged their reputations, called them vile names when they were nothing of the sort, intimidated them, got them sacked from their positions of employment, and so on.  That was what government and the media did instead of the normal thing, which would have been to welcome sober and informed discussion of the matter with a view to heading off an outcome the people wouldn’t want.

Now, in view of that behavior on the part of the overlords, that forcing, that ramming, that brutal quashing of completely innocent informed discussion — and here comes my point — it’s clear we can conclude the government or at least those with their paws on certain control levers of government explicitly wanted the inevitable result outlined in that paper:  wanted the Transition as the paper calls it, otherwise known as race-replacement.  See how we draw that incontrovertible conclusion by connecting the dots.

Here’s the conclusion we can draw by connecting the dots (we are left with no alternative to connecting the dots, since the culprits aren’t talking):  It didn’t happen by itself and it didn’t happen by someone’s honest mistake.  It was deliberately imposed with malice aforethought and a mailed fist. We can figure all that out by just connecting the dots that are in front of our nose, obliged to figure things out that way because no one will tell us outright what in the god damned fucking hell is going on.

(Am I mad?  Yes, damn mad.  You can tell?)

But why?  And who would so such a thing? 

That’s for the next round of dot-connecting but c’mon guys, most of us already have a pretty damn good idea .....

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 28, 2010, 06:17 PM | #

“The motivation [for Cameron’s pushing for Turkey’s joining the E.U.], crudely put, is to ingratiate himself with the comptrollers of the so-called ‘special relationship’.” (—DD)

Who’s making him open the borders?  Is that the same comptrollers?  (Answer:  it’s comptrollers all right but not necessarily the exact ones Dan was getting at.  Of course for Dan, where open borders are concerned “we’re doing it to ourselves” so no comptrollers are involved — according to Dan.)

Posted by Dan Dare on July 28, 2010, 06:28 PM | #

Fred, I believe that borders are being held open (to the extent that they are) because of a slavish adherence to free-market dogma which holds that just as free movement of goods and capital are necessary in the globalised economy, so is the free movement of people.

As to how that dogma came to be taken as a universal truth amongst the managerial elite is something that could be debated until until the cows come home. As may be recalled, my own personal view is that any residual institutional resistance was swept away in the early post-war period as a consequence of the transnational human rights regime which came into life as a reaction to the racial policies of the Third Reich. It’s Hitler’s Revenge if you like.

As far as Europe is concerned (as well as the white settler countries with the exception of the US) I see little evidence that Jews qua Jews had much to do with it and so in in the absence of evidence to the contrary I remain attached to the ‘self-inflicted’ hypothesis.

Posted by Angry Beard on July 28, 2010, 07:11 PM | #

Arthur Kemp is noy an idiot.
He is a very intelligent man.An accomplished author, orator and political activist.
I don’t want to quinnle or start a fevered correspondence, but I simply CANNOT put any other interpretation on the FACT that 25% of UK births are to foreign born mothers, other than at least 50% of births are non-White.
Of course, I don’t have any detailed analysis to back-up my intuition, but I don’t trust any government pronouncements on ‘race’.
It’s likely that ethnic British births in London are around 5% of total.

Posted by jamesUK on July 28, 2010, 08:36 PM | #

@Angry Beard

Most of the foreign birth are from other new EU countries not 3rd world countries.

Kemp like Ferguson has a rather jovial view of the British Empire as he was a children of it.

Posted by Dasein on July 28, 2010, 08:57 PM | #

As may be recalled, my own personal view is that any residual institutional resistance was swept away in the early post-war period as a consequence of the transnational human rights regime which came into life as a reaction to the racial policies of the Third Reich. --Dan

‘Anti-racism’ had already built up a head of steam, and had conquered large swathes of Anglo-American academia, long before the bunker was surrounded.  That’s the subject of the book I asked Desmond about.  When I’m through with my current stack of books, I’m going to order that and do some blog entries on it.  For me, this is the central role that jews have played in our predicament.  I don’t think scientific ‘anti-racism’ could have triumphed but for jewish influence.  I’ll be interested to get your take on it as the evidence is laid out.

That would be great if you could send me the paper.  You can use the e-mail address in my profile.  Thanks!

Posted by Guessedworker on July 28, 2010, 09:16 PM | #

Dan: I see little evidence that Jews qua Jews had much to do with it

Why do you think you would see it?  Do you expect a paper trail?  Is not “free-market dogma” substantially Jewish?  Where did the idea that people should be treated like goods come from, bearing in mind that that is already a denial of European peoplehood?  How did the economic freedom of the right come to be a bedmate of the egalitarianism and anti-racism of the left?  Do you really think Jewish ethnic interests had no part in that development, and “we did it to ourselves”?

I prefer to rely on Jewish nature and Jewish opportunism rather than assume that organised Jewry somehow stopped seeking the deracination of Europe as a condition of Olam Ha-ba and a precondition for the Age of the Messiac, and entirely missed the post-war opportunity for a Final Solution to the European Question.  Don’t airbrush Jews out of the equation.  They merit more than that.  The question is not whether but to what degree Jewish money and Jewish influence warped the political, social and economic dynamics in and after 1945.

We are looking for something subtle: a re-characterisation of an existing tendency, rather than the shameless introduction of a new one.  The world is a complex place.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 28, 2010, 09:21 PM | #

I guess what I mean is: blaming “the Jews” for everything is the same as absolving them from all blame.  Wrong.

Posted by Dasein on July 28, 2010, 09:35 PM | #

Dan,

There was an excellent comment by you in that thread where you debunked the propaganda in the EHRC’s ‘Ethnicity and Family’ report.  With your permission, I’d cobble that together with my comments on the birth rates, as an entry pointing out how the severity of our predicament is being exaggerated from both ends of the spectrum.  Of course, giving full credit and making it clear which parts are yours (it will mostly be a copy and paste job).  Let me know what you think.  It seems a shame to leave those comments buried in that older thread.

Posted by Dan Dare on July 28, 2010, 09:36 PM | #

‘Anti-racism’ had already built up a head of steam, and had conquered large swathes of Anglo-American academia, long before the bunker was surrounded. - Dasein

Perhaps so in America, which received the lion’s share of Jewish intellectual refugees from central Europe, but I see little evidence to support that contention in the case of the UK (read British Empire) and even less in continental Europe.

There is little in such an argument that would account for the qualitative step change in elite attitudes from 1939 to 1945, and I will still rest on my Hitler’s Revenge hypothesis until compelling evidence to contrary is presented.

… For me, this is the central role that jews have played in our predicament.  I don’t think scientific ‘anti-racism’ could have triumphed but for jewish influence.  I’ll be interested to get your take on it as the evidence is laid out.

Looking forward to it. I’m sure you’ll take care to account for American particularism in presenting the case.

Posted by Dan Dare on July 28, 2010, 09:39 PM | #

I guess what I mean is: blaming “the Jews” for everything is the same as absolving them from all blame. - GW

Do you believe I am attempting to do the latter?

Posted by Dan Dare on July 28, 2010, 09:51 PM | #

@Dasein 9:35 - feel free to use as you wish. I still have many of the source docs so let me know if you need any backup.

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 28, 2010, 10:14 PM | #

Sorry Dasein, I don’t recall that book. Maybe it was someone else or maybe it’s a senior moment.

I don’t think scientific ‘anti-racism’ could have triumphed but for jewish influence.

That’s a pretty fair statement, but really at no time did organised Jewry work alone. Only because the majority viewed it as Jews advancing their own interests.

Since antisemitism was regarded as one aspect of the problem of prejudice, universal laws against discrimination would address the specific problem of antisemitism. The method selected, the tactical approach to fulfil this grand strategy, was to forge alliances with other minority organizations and with liberal forces generally in Canadian society, to demonstrate to legislators that there existed a constituency supportive of re form. All instances of discrimination, not just those perpetrated against Jews, would be exposed in order to illustrate the need for legal protection. (7)

It is apparent that a universalist philosophy underlay this Jewish-led phase of the Canadian equality movement, that the selected tactics genuinely represented the prevailing interpretation of the problem. It should be added, however, that the specific tactics also bore the influence of Jewish experience with anti-discriminatory campaigns before 1945, and a growing understanding of the kind of resistance Jewish initiatives typically met from Canadian legislators. Experience had taught that if Jews created an impression that they were seeking to advance their own cause, they would match the stereotype of “pushy Jews,” and their claims could be dismissed by the majority. (8) For both philosophical and tactical reasons, therefore, it was the case in the years immediately following World War II that Canadian Jewish organizations deliberately scouted opportunities to confront discriminatory practices against other, non-Jewish, minorities.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb039/is_1_34/ai_n28957938/pg_2/?tag=content;col1

And amongst a people steeped in a tradition of racialism, there were many opportunities to be found.

SOMETIME IN 1941 A GROUP of “Slavic” workers travelled from Alberta to Ontario in search of skilled jobs in war industries. All the workers were Canadian-born and all had been trained under the government’s War Emergency Training Programme. Yet despite shortages in skilled labour in Ontario, they were unable to obtain work. Upon learning their names, Ontario employers refused to hire them, and the workers were eventually forced to return to Alberta.1 The rejection of these workers, despite their Canadian birth and training, baffles the contemporary reader. Were these workers of Polish, Ukrainian, Czech, Slovak, Serbian, or Croatian descent? Did they trace their origins to countries at war with Canada or ones allied with it? Ontario employers apparently considered such information irrelevant. Not the national heritage of these “Slavic” workers, but their “race” convinced prospective employers that they were unfit to work in war industries.

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/59/patrias.html

Thus there was a captive audience, huge numbers of which had been imported by special interests to fulfil their self-interest. They were not Anglo-Saxon, had little or no cultural or evolutionary notion of freedom of association and were first and foremost intent on furthering their own ethnic interest.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 28, 2010, 10:43 PM | #

Dan,

I have walked the line.  I am well aware that the perception of others can seem arbitrary and wrong.  Nonetheless, it usually signals something.

The record of the Jewish role in Europe’s genocide is yet to be researched seriously, never mind written.  We do not know the full story of where Jews qua Jews made a crucial difference.  It is hard to see.  Jewish interests align with the interests of the global elites (who are substantially Jewish), with the internationalist managerial class, and with the left (most of whose philosophy is Jewish-authored).

The other side of the coin is that we do not know to what extent we did it to ourselves.  The dynamics of Christianity and liberalism, capitalism, material progress, and so forth were all there.  We certainly have to behave as though we did it to ourselves.  These dynamics have to be addressed by a revolutionary politic.  But the nettle of the unending nature of Jewish ethnic striving has also to be grasped.  That’s really all I am saying.

Posted by Armor on July 29, 2010, 02:09 AM | #

Dan Dare: “a slavish adherence to free-market dogma which holds that just as free movement of goods and capital are necessary in the globalised economy, so is the free movement of people.”

Immigration supporters give all kinds of absurd arguments, including the idea that uncontrolled immigration fits nicely with the theory of economic laissez-faire, which is a moral imperative. But in fact, that specific argument is rarely used and doesn’t make any more sense than the others. The managerial elite doesn’t seriously believe that low-iq immigrants are better for the economy than white children.

Free trade already had its defenders a hundred years ago, but I think it is only in recent decades that some dubious people have pushed the theory of free trade to the absurd, and have been presented by the media as legitimate economists. Here again, we need to check the ethnicity of the crazy economists and of the media owners who report their views. There is much in common between the crazy free-traders and the crazy race-replacers. But they have little in common with normal economists who argue for free trade within the limits of common sense.

“how that dogma came to be taken as a universal truth amongst the managerial elite ”

It isn’t clear to me if you mean the free trade dogma, or the race-replacement religion, but there is no consensus among the managerial elite that immigration is a good thing. Whenever there seems to be a consensus in favor of a disastrous and crazy policy, it means that it isn’t a real consensus: there is pressure coming from the top.

“a reaction to the racial policies of the Third Reich. It’s Hitler’s Revenge if you like.”

I wonder why managerial elites would have that reaction, while normal people are able to retain their sanity.

“I see little evidence that Jews qua Jews had much to do with it ”

I see plenty of evidence. Do you see any evidence that Jews qua Jews had much to do with the voting of anti-free speech laws about the WWII judeocide? Those laws have been adopted in many countries. They clearly oppose the interests of 99% of people. It would be interesting to study how Jewish activists were able to get those laws voted. It would help us understand how they are able to successfully support the immigration policy, and many other things.

Posted by Matra on July 29, 2010, 03:32 AM | #

Certainly in the 1950s US policy towards Israel was guarded to say the least.

US-Israeli relations may have got closer later on but US foreign policy was pro-Israel even before the state came into existence. Well before the 1948 election Truman pressured the British to allow more immigration into Palestine and he and the Republicans vied for Jewish support by being as pro-Israel as possible.  At the time the State Department, the military, along with everyone from missionaries to entrepreneurs, plus the growing US oil interests all opposed the Zionist direction of US policy, yet even back then the Jewish lobby with its much greater influence in Congress and with the President managed to overcome the opposition.

Posted by TomSwift on July 29, 2010, 03:50 AM | #

Personally I wish we could get away from Jewish Conspiracies.

Jews have been blamed for everything, such as spreading the Black Death. At the time it was believed that the Jews had poisoned the wells. We now know it was spread by the rats and flees.

Some Jews liked Communism and so we blame Jews for Communism.
Some Jews liked Free Trade and so we blame them for Free Trade. See the contradiction?

It is true that Jewish lobbyists have been mostly pro-immigration. But last time I checked the Islamic were giving them such a hard time that the Dutch had to resort to ‘Decoy Jews’. I really can’t see how immigration has worked out for them.

Posted by n/a on July 29, 2010, 04:54 AM | #

jamesUK,

“Turkey’s integration into the EU has nothing to do with a Jewish agenda in fact it is the WASP or should I say non-Jewish WASP establishment section of the Obama administration that it pushing the pro-Turkish line.”

Name the “establishment WASPs” in the Obama administration.

Posted by Angry Beard on July 29, 2010, 06:10 AM | #

JamesUK,
You are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG>
Please stop gratuitously displaying your rank ignorance - I don’t find it endearing only annoying in the extreme.In my dotage I don’t suffer fools gladly and can’t stand idioys (you are one JamesUK, you are one of the worst posters here in terms of intellectual firepower - push off and go back to a comprehensive school type of forum).
If you actually knew the basic basics of mass immigration in to Britain you’d know the obvious fact that wogs outnumber Europeans by a manifold factor.

Posted by one on July 29, 2010, 06:27 AM | #

Immigration and Ethnic Change in Low-Fertility Countries: A Third Demographic Transition

TABLE 1 Summary projection assumptions and results, selected populations, Western Europe, 2000–2050

Austria

2000
Population 8.10 million
Percent foreign 9.31
Percent Western 5.39
Percent non-Western 3.92

2050
Population 7.80 million
Percent foreign 28.00
Percent Western 7.94
Percent non-Western 5.07

England and Wales

2001
Population 52.0 million
Percent foreign 11.3
Percent Western 2.7
Percent non-Western 8.7

2051
Population 63.1 million
Percent foreign 36.1
Percent Western 11.6
Percent non-Western 24.5

Denmark

2004
Population 5.40 million
Percent foreign 8.74
Percent Western 2.40
Percent non-Western 5.96

2050
Population 5.45 million
Percent foreign 14.76
Percent Western 3.30
Percent non-Western 11.45

Germany

2000
Population 82.20 million
Percent foreign 9.90
Percent Western 3.28
Percent non-Western 6.57

2050
Population 68.30 million
Percent foreign 23.56
Percent Western 5.40
Percent non-Western 18.16

Netherlands

2004
Population 15.90 million
Percent foreign 17.50
Percent Western 8.60
Percent non-Western 8.90

2050
Population 16.90 million
Percent foreign 29.70
Percent Western 13.20
Percent non-Western 16.50

Norway

2005
Population 4.55 million
Percent foreign 7.50
Percent Western 4.10
Percent non-Western 3.40

2060
Population 5.58 million
Percent foreign 23.50
Percent Western 9.20
Percent non-Western 14.30

Sweden

2004
Population 9.01 million
Percent foreign 15.90
Percent Western 9.66
Percent non-Western 6.25

2050
Population 10.63
Percent foreign 32.30
Percent Western 10.46
Percent non-Western 10.71

Some of the assumptions:

In general, the projections described below assume that migration from poor countries will continue at the same absolute (not relative) level as in recent years while migration from richer countries will diminish (see Table 1). Given the considerations above, those are conservative assumptions.

In the projections for Germany, Norway, and Sweden, persons are classified as second-generation “foreign ancestry,” “foreign origin,” or “foreign background” if both of their parents are born abroad, in the Netherlands and Denmark if only one parent is born abroad, in the latter case on a proportional basis. For exact details it is necessary to refer to the original publications.

All of the Continental projections assume that all or most of the third generation (grandchildren of immigrants) becomes assimilated and they are included as natives, not foreign origin. That approach tends to produce linear, not exponential, growth in the proportion of the population of foreign origin. None of the projections incorporates “mixed-origin” categories.

Neither of the Austrian projections above includes naturalization, and they develop in exponential form, not linear.

For simplicity, none of the projections described here incorporates such mixed categories. All assume instead that the children of mixed unions are absorbed into one or the other parental group.

Appendix 1 Projections of the foreign-origin population of six countries

Austria

However, two of the scenarios are also presented without naturalization, even of the third or subsequent generation, mimicking “ethnic minority” populations with potentially permanent distinct identities. Accordingly with zero migration the proportion foreign rises from 9 percent to 13 percent by 2050, through its higher natural increase. With restricted migration and without naturalization the percent foreign rises to 17 percent. The proportion foreign without naturalization in the Compensatory scenario is not given. However, as before it can be approximated by subtracting the annual population totals of Austrian citizens in the “No immigration and no naturalization” scenario from the overall totals in the “Compensatory” variant. The difference between the two would be the foreign citizen population: the descendants of those already in Austria in 2000 plus the immigrants and their descendants from 2000 onward, all of whom may be assumed to be foreign (net migration of Austrian citizens is negative). On that basis, the foreign-origin population would represent 28 percent of the total by 2050.

Germany

“Ancestry” is determined by having two foreign parents, irrespective of naturalization. The third generation is assumed to be German irrespective of origin.

Denmark

As in other projections, rules for the classification into these categories reflect the assumed process of absorption of foreign-origin population into the “Danish” population. Thus children with at least one parent who is a Danish citizen born in Denmark are considered to be “Danish.” If both parents are foreign citizens or born abroad, the child is a “descendant.” With minor exceptions, others are “Danish.”

Thus the foreign-origin populations become “Danish” over time through a combination of the effects of naturalization, mixed marriage, and generations of residence. Coefficients derived from information in the population registers on origins and naturalizations determine the distribution of the numbers of “descendants” and “Danes” among the offspring of immigrants born in Denmark in the projections. If all “descendants” chose to naturalize and if immigration ceased, then eventually no foreign-origin population would remain; all would be “Danish.”

Netherlands

As usual, two major foreign groups are distinguished: “Western” and “non-Western.” The latter include Turks, Moroccans, Surinamese, Antilleans, Arubans, and others (de Jong 2001). Only two generations are recognized. The “First Generation” comprises people born outside the Netherlands with at least one parent born outside the Netherlands. A member of the “Second Generation” is a person born in the Netherlands with at least one parent born outside the country. Subsequent generations are assumed to be Dutch. Children born in the Netherlands with a Dutch-born parent and at least one foreign-born grandparent comprise a mixed second-third generation that is included, for these statistical purposes, in the second generation. Registration linkage permits identification of a third generation (persons with at least one grandparent born abroad), a small but fast-growing group.

Norway

The Norwegian projections (Statistics Norway 2005) from 2005 to 2060 incorporate five groups differentiated by “background”: that is, first-generation immigrants plus persons born in Norway with two foreign parents. The five groups are: Norwegians; other Norden; other “Western” populations from the EU and EFTA, North America, and Oceania; Eastern Europeans; and a group corresponding to “Non-Western” populations, from Africa, Asia, Turkey, and Latin America.

Sweden

The Swedish 2000-based projections of the population of foreign origin define a population of “foreign background” that comprises persons born outside Sweden together with persons born in Sweden with both parents born abroad. Persons born in Sweden with at least one parent born in Sweden are defined to be of Swedish background or foreign background in varying proportions depending on the birthplace of the mother (Statistics Sweden 2003: 17, 77).

Notable statements in the paper:

If current trends continue, the majority population of indigenous origin of many, possibly of most, European countries would give way to equivalence, or even numerical inferiority, relative to populations of recent immigrant or mixed origin. That would be an ultimate “replacement migration” of a kind not previously seen over large geographic areas without invasion or force.

The relevant conclusion here is that any population with sub-replacement fertility that maintains a constant or a growing population size through immigration will acquire a population of predominantly, eventually entirely, immigrant origin (except for descent-lines in mixed unions). And in any population with average fertility below replacement, any one minority population with a higher growth rate must in the long run become numerically dominant (Steinmann and Jäger 2000). The original population is transformed either way, whether the growing new populations retain a strict separation of identity or become mixed. The ultimate outcome of replacement is unaffected by whether the immigrant populations adopt domestic low fertility rates quickly, slowly, or not at all (Coale 1986).

As a result, by around 2000 over 10 percent of the populations of some Western European countries had been born abroad, and in the case of Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, and Switzerland, a greater proportion than in the United States (12.3 percent in 2000). Those proportions continually increase. In the developed world, only parts of Eastern Europe, and Japan and Korea, have modest migration inflows.

In the early 2000s 18 percent of births in England and Wales and in France and 23 percent in the United States were to immigrant women, indicating the shape of things to come.

As intra-European migration has moderated, the dynamic has passed more to non-European inflows, their rapid growth made salient by novel distinctive differences in appearance, culture, language, and religion. In Britain, for example, nonwhite ethnic minority populations, irrespective of nationality or birthplace, were estimated to number about 50,000 in 1951. They numbered 1.3 million at the census of 1971, 3.0 million in 1991, and 4.5 million in 2001: an average annual growth rate of 4.1 percent. Some components grew even faster: the population of African origin has doubled every ten years, from 108,000 in 1981 to 480,000 in 2001—an annual growth rate of 7.5 percent. In the Netherlands, the foreign-origin population grew on average by 2.7 percent per year between 1995 and 2003. This growth has made an important contribution to overall population growth and has expanded the ethnic and racial diversity of populations that hitherto considered themselves to be relatively homogeneous—ancient regional differences apart.

In many countries, high annual levels of naturalization have made data based upon citizenship meaningless as indicators of foreign stock in all but a legal sense. Annual naturalizations have often exceeded the annual inflow of immigrants. That phenomenon has substantially diminished statistically, but not in reality, the numbers of people of foreign origin in Belgium, France, Netherlands, Sweden, and elsewhere. In those countries, citizenship data understate the stock of foreign-origin population and its rate of increase by one-half or more. For a more representative picture, some European countries are adopting statistical definitions of foreign-origin population that include both immigrants and the second immigrant generation (“descendants,” “foreign background”) by linkage with the birthplace or citizenship of parents through population registers. For example, in the Netherlands any person with one or both parents born abroad is defined as “foreign origin.” All others, including persons with third-generation foreign ancestry, are assumed to be Dutch (Alders 2001a). This exclusion of most of the third and subsequent generations leads to a progressive underestimate, and under-projection, of the population of foreign origin compared with more enduring ethnic or racial criteria. On that basis, the foreign-origin population was estimated to be 3.04 million out of the 16 million total population in the Netherlands in 2003 (19 percent), compared with the 700,000 persons of foreign citizenship (4 percent). This foreign-origin population has increased rapidly, unlike the foreign citizen population, which has declined since 1995 (see Figure 3).

Posted by one on July 29, 2010, 06:31 AM | #

More notable statements in the paper:

These trends are, of course, not written in stone. The assumptions behind them may all be falsified, not least by steps taken in reaction to the projected outcomes. The level of migration is at least nominally under public policy control. The population changes projected above can be regarded as determinable, if unintended, consequences of the continuation of high migration levels.  Sometimes, long-term increases in immigration are the unforeseen consequence of policies intended to have much more limited and short-term aims, such as the 1965 US Immigration Act (Teitelbaum and Winter 1998: Ch. 7). Only the government of Canada has had, since the late 1980s, an explicit demographic aim in its migration policy, namely of increasing population by immigrant numbers equivalent to 1 percent of the population per year. Many European governments promoted temporary guestworker policies to meet short-term labor needs in the 1950s and 1960s, the long-term consequences of which are apparent today. Labor migration under work permit continues, and all Western governments are committed to rights of family reunification and to refugee conventions. The longer-term consequences of these commitments and inflows have remained little considered; their discussion discouraged. Governments may be unaware of their implications, or, in the case of Britain, may refuse to take a view on them. In France the preparation of projections such as those described above would be impossible. In Britain they have been approached as though through a minefield.

Either way, on the broad scale, no new major additions to the European gene pool are apparent since the Neolithic—very recent immigrant populations excepted.

In recent centuries demographic change resulting from peaceful migration within Europe usually was more modest until the industrial mobility of the later nineteenth century (Moch 1992), mostly involving local and regional migration. With the major exception of the huge forced displacements of the twentieth century (Kosinski 1970), populations have been relatively stable in their ancestry and in their language and culture, most major migration flows being directed overseas, provoking radical replacements in the New Worlds.

For our purposes, all of these earlier examples emphasize the discontinuity created by immigration to Europe since the 1950s. The changes currently underway, unlike those of the past, are not violent but do involve substantial population inflows from cultures of remote origins. The effects on ancestry in the long run may eclipse anything that has gone before, in the degree of replacement, in the geographic remoteness of origins, and in the speed of change.

Nevertheless, averages conceal great diversity in geography and by age group. Even a foreign-origin population stabilized at the projected 25–35 percent of foreign origin by 2050, with about two-thirds of non-European origin, would imply majority-foreign-origin populations in many, if not most, major European cities. Even in the 1990s 40 percent of the population of Amsterdam and Rotterdam, and 28 percent in Brussels and Frankfurt were of foreign origin (Musterd, Ostendorf, and Breebaart 1998), while by 2001 40 percent of London’s inhabitants were of non-British ethnic origin, and over 50 percent in nine boroughs each with populations of about a quarter of a million. Transformations would also be more striking among younger cohorts, powerfully influencing perceptions and assumptions among young people at school and college, which would become divorced from those of their parents and elders. For example, in the overall projection for Britain, by 2031 all minorities together would comprise 27 percent of the total population but 36 percent among the 0–14 age group. Among those aged 65 and older, the minority proportion would be just 11 percent—the national overall average in 2001. The distribution of minority proportions by age would thus reflect the process of transition. By 2050 births of minority origin would approach 50 percent, with further change in the total inevitable. A final criterion might be specified, at a lower overall total, when the electoral and political system makes the migration process irreversible. By no means all members of minority groups support further immigration, but most do. As numbers and naturalization grow, so will influence, as all political parties must compete for immigrant support. This effect is particularly powerful in Britain, where Commonwealth immigrants may vote without becoming British citizens. Policies to restrict immigration may then disappear from the agenda. The recent Congressional impasse suggests that a turning point has been reached in the United States. Britain may be at the same point following a recent realignment of policy in the only major political party traditionally opposed to migration, explicitly in order to attract more support from ethnic minorities.

The likely growth of mixed-ancestry populations further underlines the irreversibility of the processes discussed here. All this is reflected in, and possibly encouraged by, the increasing complexity of the ethnic categories used in British and US censuses (Goldstein and Morning 2002; Jones 2005).

Should these demographic changes come to pass, to what extent would they actually matter? That issue raises various political and philosophical considerations untouched by earlier demographic transitions. In non-Western societies the importance and undesirability of any such change would be so axiomatic as not to warrant discussion. In majority popular opinion in the West, the response would probably be similar (one can only speculate in the absence of specific opinion polls). But elite opinion is more nuanced, some finding it difficult to articulate acceptable reasons for objecting, others actively welcoming a more diverse society on various ideological grounds, seeing positive merit in greater diversity.

Human rights are the starting point for much modern political argument, and here the balance of discussion is markedly asymmetrical. Almost all concern about rights in connection with migration focuses upon the rights of immigrant populations (e.g., the Global Commission on International Migration 2005), not upon the rights of natives to conserve their own way of life, language, laws, neighborhoods and communities, and prior privileges (Dench, Gavron, and Young 2006). Principles of cultural conservation, nowadays recognized and defended on behalf of the Yanomamö and Tapirapé of the Amazon forest (Colchester 2002), find little parallel on behalf the native inhabitants of Tower Hamlets or Toulouse, although their complaints would meet most of the criteria proposed for such protection (see Kenrick and Lewis 2004). In Europe, local nativist protests tend to be denounced as racist, xenophobic, and deluded, including by anthropologists who do not accept the “native” parallel (Kuper 2003). Instead the usual response is that such dissenters need simply to be more thoroughly re-educated on the actual benefits of immigration to themselves and to global GDP.

For the most part, non-European migration for permanent settlement has developed with the indifference or favor of elite opinion, but in the face of consistent popular opposition. For example, in Britain for some time public opinion has put immigration first or second among the issues that concern it (British Social Attitudes Survey 2004; YouGov, February 2005, March 2006; and MORI, May 2003, January 2006). Even in the United States, there have been few years when opposition to current levels of immigration has not been the most widely expressed concern (e.g., Zogby Poll, 3 May 2006). So it is perhaps surprising that discussion of the prospect outlined here has not been more sharply focused. It has received some critical scholarly attention (Bouvier 1991; Smith and Kim 2004; Huntington 2004), along with some scholarly refutation (Rumbaut, Massey, and Bean 2006), and airing from thoughtful journalists (Booth 1998), and more from some think tanks and special-interest groups (e.g., Center for Immigration Studies in the United States) but until recently has been politically quiescent.

Critical comments are muted in the media, in publishing, and in academic life by pervasive pressures and self-censorship (Browne 2006). In Britain, for example, the government will not comment on the longer-term consequences of high immigration, instead merely condemning as irresponsible those who raise any less than favorable reflection on it. However, following one of the rare media airings of “population replacement” in Britain (The Observer, 3 September 2000), minority activists and race relations workers—in the Commission for Racial Equality, in London local government, and in the media—welcomed the prospect of ethnic transformation variously as marking the final response to white racism, as an appropriate rejoinder to colonial exploitation, or at the very least as a matter of no consequence (see Browne 2006).

If the changes projected above come to pass, it seems reasonable to regard them as significant and to warrant use of the term transition, even though restricted to the developed, low-fertility countries of the world. The process is likely to be asymmetrical: the composition of the population of the developed world will come to resemble more that of the developing world, but not conversely. Transformations of population composition on the scale projected have not hitherto been experienced under peaceful circumstances. Major changes would be apparent within the time scale of a century. Their effects would be irreversible, although their significance is arguably contingent on the pattern of integration and assimilation, or its absence.

These prospective changes are proceeding in the absence of overt intentions to procure their predictable outcome and despite widespread public opposition to the levels of migration that are driving them. Without restraint from policy, or spontaneous moderation of trend, the process is likely soon to become irreversible in some countries. In ignoring its long-term consequences the countries of the West are facilitating a radical transformation of the composition of their societies and the cessation of a specific heritage: a transition by default, through embarrassment at discussing difficult issues or in a fit of absence of mind. Democratic approval might have been thought necessary for so notable and permanent a change, the prospect of which would have been dismissed as absurd just a few decades ago.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 29, 2010, 10:53 AM | #

Everyone needs to very carefully and thoughtfully read the excerpts from the Coleman study posted above by the commenter signing as “One.” The entire Coleman article is available free of charge at the link in “One’s” first comment.  I haven’t read the whole article yet but shall tonight, and I’ve copied it, the whole article, into my computer to make sure I’ll have it if it’s taken off the internet (the graphs did not come out in the copy).

In my view the present race-replacement régime reflects Jewish influence on the political process much like the present U.S. unconditional-support-for-Israel régime does.  It may be hard to accept but when you think hard and long about it, it isn’t.  As Armor asks, who else would be doing it?  DD’s contention, that we are doing it to ourselves, is untenable.  Some will say that “The Jews are doing it” is also untenable.  Oh, it is?  Then why isn’t “The Jews are controlling U.S. policy toward Israel” not only not untenable but proven in the scolarly world to be fact (though politically no one can yet do anything about it, just like with immigration)?  It is universally accepted and academically proven to everyone’s satisfaction in the scholarly world (see Walt & Mearsheimer’s book and dozens of other works along the same lines) that Jewish influence on politics is why the U.S. takes the position it does in support of Israel.  Why is one tenable but not the other?  Is one harder for the Jews to pull off?  No.  Are both deemed by the Jews of great importance to themselves as a group?  Yes.  Aside from 1) policy toward Israel and 2) the open-borders policy combined with pro-race-replacement domestic social policy (both decisively influenced by largely behind-the-scenes Jewish exertions on the political process) are other strange goings-on the past decades which are simply not comprehensible until one finally grasps that, yes, the Jews are mainly the ones behind them.  One such in the U.S. is the drive to eliminate public Christmas and there are several others of course, such as the excesses of what is inappropriately termed “feminism” and still lots of others which it’s not hard to identify.

Suppose it’s true, what do we do about it?  Set up concentration camps for the Jews?  No, what we do about it is strive to realize it ourselves (or realize whatever the truth is if this turns out not to be true after all — but I for one don’t think it will) and get as many others as we can to realize it too, then all together change things so as to set them back once again on their proper course.

It’s all doable.

Posted by Leon Haller on July 29, 2010, 11:00 AM | #

The comments from the paper quoted from just above are outstanding! Please post the entire paper!

(This, incidentally, is what we should discuss, not Who’s Whiter, Germans or Italians?)

I do NOT understand why Europeans cannot create explicitly anti-immigration parties, done along nationalist lines. Yes, I know some exist obviously, but why don’t they flourish? I say it’s because of the cowardice of conservatives, who have never ‘conserved’ anything. It is as though they exist simply to manage the West’s decline and senescence, when they could easily (well, not so easily now, but still plausibly) reverse it.

While the racial element in immigration is the worst, there are many perfectly sound reasons to oppose immigration beyond simply race-replacement. Why can’t a party eschew all Jew-baiting, Holocaust revisionism, intra-white ethnic disputes, etc, and simply focus on the costs and problems associated with the invasion? If the majorities are so opposed to the invasion, then wouldn’t that work?

The answer goes back to what I’ve written here before about the need for conquest. The core problem is that most whites everywhere do NOT heavily oppose the invasion. At best, they stand in only tepid opposition to it. There is little passion (though it is growing, thankfully, but only in tandem with the severity of the problem). No white majority anywhere is militantly determined to preserve itself.

Hence the need for all racial whites to converge and peacefully conquer some single sovereign jurisdiction. Otherwise, we will remain a powerless minority everywhere.

Posted by Armor on July 29, 2010, 11:08 AM | #

Some Jews liked Communism and so we blame Jews for Communism.
Some Jews liked Free Trade and so we blame them for Free Trade. See the contradiction? (—TomSwift)

What’s wrong is that under Jewish guidance, both the former communists and former free-traders have turned into race-replacement activists. See the common pattern?

I really can’t see how immigration has worked out for them. (—TomSwift)

I really can’t see how immigration has worked out for White people.

Jews are at a lower risk than Whites of being raped or murdered by third-world immigrants because they live farther from them on average. They are not being displaced by immigrants. The US Supreme Court will soon be one third Jewish. The media are overwhelmingly Jewish. The Jews are massively overrepresented in the universities and in elite positions.

The Jewish elites seem to think that they have a better chance of surviving in a hostile third-world environment than in a friendly White environment. The incidence of miscegenation and cultural assimilation will be lower. Steve Sailer had a VDare column (Demography: Is It Good For The Jews…Or The Americans?) on the subject two weeks ago.

Posted by Leon Haller on July 29, 2010, 11:13 AM | #

Fred,

Obviously, you are correct wrt America’s ludicrous “special relationship” with Israel. Why does it exist? Jewish influence.

And yes, Jews have been by far the leading white (or “white") American ethnic group constantly pushing immigration here in the US (not to mention feminism, civil rights, gay rights, etc). As MacDonald showed, this goes way back at least to the 1920s.

But here is a stumbling block: why does every European nation (many of which are quite hostile to Jews and Israel, you need to consider) fall for the denial of Race, when in many there are few if any Jews? Why can none commit to ethnonational preservation? Alleging “The Jews” is way too simplistic. There is some deep sickness in the racial soul of the white man (and no, it isn’t Christianity, as I have also explained on this site - when the West was more Christian, it was also more racialist).

I have no skin in this game. I’m not at all Jewish, and while I have a number of Jewish friends (several of whom are white nationalists, or at least far right conservatives), I have no love or concern for the Jewish Community per se. I just want the truth, to save the race which is the foundation of my civilization, and the way of life and mode of being in the world I cherish.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 29, 2010, 11:14 AM | #

By the way, if race-replacement is ever successfully overthrown and things set back once again on their proper course you will see Jewish fury unleashed in ways very similar to the Jewish revolt known as “The Sixties” only worse, and Euros will have to be prepared to fight against them and their allies or they’ll simply re-install the same race-replacement régime but harsher this time.  In other words, once race-replacement is toppled and sanity restored things do not go back to the “same old” of before, because the other side led by the Jews will lauch a major war to restore what’s been toppled.  Like it or not we are henceforth under a requirement of eternal vigilance:  the other side has no intention of letting up or dropping its goal of getting the Euro peoples race-replaced.  The reason is as long as they live among us they will see our race-replacement as highly desirable because it represents in their minds the best way to permanently relieve certain ethnocultural pressures which our own tribal health, happiness, and well-being exert on them, pressures which they find very unpleasant and hard to deal with.

I’m on record as calling for separate countries for Jews and Euro peoples (and giving Jews more land for this since Israel isn’t big enough for them all) which I think would greatly help end this problem in future, the problem of Jews forever exerting their considerable influence on politics to implement race-replacement as a way of getting rid of certain pressures on themselves as a group, pressures which they hate.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 29, 2010, 11:23 AM | #

“why does every European nation (many of which are quite hostile to Jews and Israel, you need to consider) fall for the denial of Race, when in many there are few if any Jews?” (—Leon Haller)

Leon, I’ve given my opinion on this numerous times — right at the moment I haven’t time to hunt where I’ve given it or to re-state it — but later, if I remember.

Posted by Angry Beard on July 29, 2010, 01:28 PM | #

I also hate the modern tedency ( I’ve never heard of it till very recently), of conflate free trade and uncontrolled immigration.
The globalists are keen to present them as two complementary twins , ‘you can’t have one with out the other, you know’, and a lot of stupid shit-eating politicians have fallen for this guff.
WELL, the whole point of free trade, as originally understood, was to allow citizens of geographically distinct nations enjoy the fruits of those climes without having to physically move there.As Adam Smith put it, it is possible to grow vines in Scotland in greenhouses, but it makes more sense to import clart from France and give the French Scottish woolens back in return.
That’s the whole point.I can eat bananas without going to live in Costa Rica.The goods move (as they should), but the people stay put.
Having the people move along with the goods rather destroys the simplicity and beauty of a powerful idea.
Everytime we here one of the bastards utter the conflated lie in public, it’s our duty to challenge the cunt.We can’t let them get away with it and allow their lies (classical economists never but never advocated anything of the sort), become the ‘perceived wisdom’.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 29, 2010, 01:52 PM | #

“I also hate the modern tedency ( I’ve never heard of it till very recently), of conflate free trade and uncontrolled immigration.  The globalists are keen to present them as two complementary twins , ‘you can’t have one with out the other, you know’, and a lot of stupid shit-eating politicians have fallen for this guff.” (—Angry Beard)

“Stupid politicians fall for it” is the wrong way to see it.  The right way is, “Politicians conform to the requirements of the ones who fund them most and arrange favorable press coverage for them.” What you’re seeing in men like Clinton, Bush, Blair, Brown, and Cameron are the desires not of Clinton, Bush, Blair, Brown, or Cameron but of the behind-the-scenes funding-and-media networks who support the politicians who do their bidding and utterly cut off all others.  These behind-the-scenes forces include, most importantly, the (fill in the blank) ________ .

Do you imagine a man like Bush, Blair, Cameron, and so on, actually has political views as we normally think of political views?  Of course not: they’re opportunists to a man, and the reason our political process is so clogged with this type of individual nowadays is because of the money thoroughly corrupting that process among other things:  they’re all bought men on a leash, a leash held by their funders.  DD trots out official lists of funders for our scrutiny.  I have news for DD:  there are many ways to do massive political funding without getting your identity on any official list.  All these ways are used.

Posted by Leon Haller on July 29, 2010, 01:54 PM | #

Of course. Free trade and open borders are wholly analytically distinct issues. Free trade does indeed act as a substitute (in one sense) for free migration. One can have pure free trade, and zero immigration.

But from a nationalist perspective, while non-co-racial immigration is a huge part of what we are against, free trade must ultimately be treated warily, too. There is a psychological tendency for those who are militant free traders to develop pro-immigration views as well. This comes from having a basically economistic view of life’s goods. If maximizing wealth is seen to be the sumum bonum, then it’s a short (mental) step from arguing on behalf of free trade’s economic efficiency, to arguing that labor mobility can be efficient, too - or at least, to failing to be willing to make the economic sacrifices which might be attendant upon saving one’s people. 

On the other hand, nationalist immigration and trade policies reinforce each other, philosophically as well as psychologically.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 29, 2010, 02:56 PM | #

“nationalist immigration and trade policies reinforce each other” (—Leon)

I wouldn’t call them nationalist, I’d call them “normal,” “worker-friendly,” “family-friendly,” “progressive,” “non-genocidal,” and some other terms.  Where convenient I avoid “nationalist” including the term “white nationalist.” I’m just a normal guy who opposes genocide when genocide’s rammed down my throat.  “Nationalist”?  What’s that???  Dunno what that is and don’t need to know:  I’m normal.  That’s all, just normal.  Period.

Posted by PF on July 29, 2010, 03:46 PM | #

from the article:

Without restraint from policy, or spontaneous moderation of trend, the process is likely soon to become irreversible in some countries.

yet we still dont discuss this outside the blogsophere, typically.

Posted by Dan Dare on July 29, 2010, 04:20 PM | #

I’m glad that an open link has been found for the Coleman paper, I had thought it was only available behind a paywall.

It is required reading.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 29, 2010, 04:25 PM | #

“yet we still dont discuss this outside the blogsophere, typically.” (—PF)

Because discussing it is not allowed.  Why, do you suppose?  After all, there’s nothing wrong with it as a subject matter for discussion.  Who refuses to allow it then?  Find that out and you’ll be staring at the one doing it, the one responsible for the whole mess, he and his confederates.  You’ll have your culprit right in front of you.

Posted by jamesUK on July 29, 2010, 11:16 PM | #

@n/a

Name the “establishment WASPs” in the Obama administration.

Gates, Brezinski and the WASP Obama administration.

@Angry Beard

Census data says otherwise YOU FOOL in every European country which commentators like you keep posting moronic comments which run counter to the facts.

Show me census data of a single European country were the native white population consist of less than 85-89%.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 30, 2010, 01:38 AM | #

”@Angry Beard:  Census data says otherwise, YOU FOOL, in every European country in which commentators like you keep posting moronic comments which run counter to the facts.” (—JamesUK)

Is Professor Coleman a fool too?  By the way, he teaches demographics at Oxford University.  Here’s his 2006 article on the subject; I don’t think you’ll find it runs counter to the facts:

http://www.spsw.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/pdf/WP33_Third_Demographic_Transition.pdf .

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 30, 2010, 04:35 AM | #

“Is Professor Coleman a fool too?” (—my comment to JamesUK)

Was Enoch Powell? 

Here he is in 1977 saying how in 1968 he had underestimated the problem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fw0rUJbE9k&feature=related .

You can see in fact, from our vantage point 33 years on, how in this interview in 1977 he still underestimates it.

Was he a fool too, JamesUK?  (Or is it rather you who are woefully uninformed?)

Posted by Gudmund on July 30, 2010, 04:48 AM | #

Was he a fool too, JamesUK?
>Fred Scrooby

Fred, I think JamesUK is one of those guys who likes to argue for the sake of arguing.  He used to post at Takimag and had similar issues there.  He’s one of those fellows who enjoys any sort of controversial / taboo political subjects (see also: his references to ‘Great Game’-style geopolitics, Rothschilds, etc) which is why he continually shows up here even though anyone can see he’s not a racialist.

Posted by asdf on July 30, 2010, 09:58 PM | #

Dan Dare,

Have you read, or are you interested in reading Coleman’s later papers, perhaps for a write-up? There is the issue of self-identification as British White, which is totally helter-skelter. The situation is much worse, and number of natives much lower than you think.

Posted by Dan Dare on July 30, 2010, 10:26 PM | #

Have you read, or are you interested in reading Coleman’s later papers, perhaps for a write-up? There is the issue of self-identification as British White, which is totally helter-skelter. The situation is much worse, and number of natives much lower than you think.

The whole matter of ethnic classification in western societies is somewhat fraught with risk, simply because it relies on self-identification. But I would be interested to see what Coleman has to say on the subject. Do you have a specific link?

Posted by asdf on July 30, 2010, 10:41 PM | #

Sure, but it’s more than “fraught with risk”—surprisingly “fraught with risk.” I’ve academic access, but I’d rather not put them anywhere public until I’ve removed their metadata, and I may or may not be arsed to do so. I’ve downloaded 4 PDFs of his work since.

I ask GW to hand you my mail addy as well, then.

Posted by Dan Dare on July 30, 2010, 10:45 PM | #

I have academic access too, and your email address.

Just provide here the title and year of publication of the specific paper(s) to which you refer.

Posted by asdf on July 30, 2010, 11:28 PM | #

Pursuant to the publications, well, I can get any of these that are published in journals with Online access.  Regarding the above claim:

Coleman, D.A. and Dubuc, S. (2010) ‘The fertility of ethnic minorities in the UK, 1960’s - 2006’ Population Studies: A Journal of Demography

In the Appendix, Table A1 Ethnic origin of children aged 0 according to the ethnic origin of mothers, England and Wales 2001 (per cent). Ethnic categories condensed to eight

Here.

I.e., 29.32% of mothers that self-identify as “All mixed” magically have “British” children.

Posted by jamesUK on July 30, 2010, 11:34 PM | #

@Fred Scrooby

The only way you can measure population demographics accurately is through census data.

Currently the white population is 92% in Britain and is probably higher in other European countries. 

@Gudmund

I don’t slavishly put racial arguments into every argument where they have no bearing unlike you and when I post my opinions they are always backed up by hard facts.

Turkeys push into the EU is because it is a transit point for oil and gas that bypasses Russia. Ipso facto.

Even your Golden boy Haider in Austria supported Turkish entry into the EU.

Posted by Dan Dare on July 30, 2010, 11:58 PM | #

Pursuant to the publications, well, I can get any of these that are published in journals with Online access.  Regarding the above claim:

Coleman, D.A. and Dubuc, S. (2010) ‘The fertility of ethnic minorities in the UK, 1960’s - 2006’ Population Studies: A Journal of Demography

In the Appendix, Table A1 Ethnic origin of children aged 0 according to the ethnic origin of mothers, England and Wales 2001 (per cent). Ethnic categories condensed to eight

Here.

I.e., 29.32% of mothers that self-identify as “All mixed” magically have “British” children.

I’m only interested in papers that would cause a significant re-appraisal of the conclusions stated in Coleman’s 2006 paper that we have been discussing. Since you are implying that to be the case, I need the specific titles that have caused you make those claims, not a list of all of his papers.

As for the table you have presented, I would want to inspect the data source before making any comment beyond simply noting that, even if taken at face value, 29.32% of 2.33% = 0.7%, which is a very small proportion of the overall population and certainly not enough to to support your earlier assertion that “… The situation is much worse, and number of natives much lower than you think.”

Posted by Dan Dare on July 31, 2010, 12:02 AM | #

The only way you can measure population demographics accurately is through census data.

To some extent that that is true, although the ONS mid-year population estimates do provide a idea of the underlying trends.

We won’t have long to wait now for the 2011 Census, and I for one would be highly surprised if it does not reveal that the non-white population has close to doubled since 2001, increasing from 4.6 million to 8.5-9 million.

Posted by Dan Dare on July 31, 2010, 12:32 AM | #

Turkeys push into the EU is because it is a transit point for oil and gas that bypasses Russia. Ipso facto.

Are the pushers unaware of this?

Posted by Dan Dare on July 31, 2010, 01:14 AM | #

I have briefly reviewed the Coleman paper cited and find that it doesn’t alter the 2006 conclusions in the slightest.

The 2010 paper is concerned entirely with the differential fertility rates of various ethnic groups and changes in those rates over time. It has very little to tell us about the reliability (or otherwise) of the self-identified ethnic classifications used in the census and in the intermediate ONS estimates.

The stray table produced above is based on data from the 2001 census, but is missing the critical information about the number of births to mothers of each of the different ethnicities.

We can take a couple of different approaches to assessing what impact the ’29.32%’ figure might have upon the number of white British reported in the 2001 Census*.

a) First, the census data indicate that 1.2% of the population identified as mixed. The census further indicated that around 55% of the mixed population was under 16. Taking an extreme position that 29.32% of all mixed race children were incorrectly classified as white British in the census, that would mean that native population was overstated by [1.2% * 0.55 * 0.2932] or 0.19%. Instead of the white British population being 89.7% of the total, we would need to adjust it down to 89.5% to account for the mis-classified births to mixed-race mothers.

b) A second approach is to take the birth data from the table cited above and impute the number of mis-classified births using the data available there and in the rest of paper. From the table given, we see that the census reported a total of 513,792 children under the age of 1, but as previously noted we do not have the actual numbers by ethnicity. However Coleman’s 2010 paper does provide the TFR by ethnicity (table 3) and from this we see that the rate for white mothers was 1.72 and that for mixed-race mothers was 1.89. The mean was very close to the white rate, as would be expected. So let’s assume a worst case and assume that mixed-race mothers gave birth at double their representation in the overall population, ie not 1.2% but 2.4% of all births. In that case, the number of mis-classified births comes out as [513,792 * 0.024 * 0.2932] = 3,615. Given the white British population of 52.8 million it is hardly worth the trouble to calculate.

Suffice to say asdf is a time-waster.

*In gross round figures the census data reported a total UK population of 58.59 million, of which 89.7% were white British, 2.4% white non-British and 7.9% ethnic minority.

Posted by jamesUK on August 01, 2010, 12:41 AM | #

@Dan Dare

Are the pushers unaware of this?

Yes thats why the US is pushing for Nabucco

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabucco_pipeline

In wikipedia by accident when I typed in Nabucco it came up with this.

Nabucco (short for Nabucodonosor, English Nebuchadnezzar) is an opera in four acts by Giuseppe Verdi to an Italian libretto by Temistocle Solera, based on the Biblical story and the 1836 play by Auguste Anicet-Bourgeois and Francis Cornue. It is Verdi’s third opera and the one which is considered to have permanently established his reputation as a composer.

Nabucco follows the plight of the Jews as they are assaulted, conquered, and subsequently exiled from their homeland by the Babylonian King Nabucco (in English, Nebuchadnezzar). The historical events are used as background for a romantic and political plot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabucco

Interesting!

Posted by qwerty on August 07, 2010, 10:24 PM | #

My friends trust me Turkish people doesn’t want to join EU.You guys claim yourself as unachievable, think that europe is the peak of the mountain, but no. Your little nation lost its glamour.

WE are a developed and a rich country. We have a language that is spoken by at least 150 million people worldvide.  And NO we dont speak Arabic or Persian.  And we can buy everything you have. There is no diffrence between you and us. Thats that and don’t worry europe, we wont join EU, because we play big.

PS. Truth is, we conquered europe for hundreds of years so we’ve had enough of it.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 07, 2010, 10:54 PM | #

Good, querty, I’m glad we and you Turks agree on your not joining Europe.  We’ll hold you to that.  (Just see you don’t change your minds, OK?)