Majorityrights News > Category: Demographics

Finally, twenty months and 1.5 million migrants after the Census date last year, here is what the ONS has to say:

g18nbg1r.bmp

On Census Day, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300.  The population of England was 56,489,800.  The population of Wales was 3,107,500.  This was the largest the population has ever been.

About the natives it has this to say:

In 2021, 81.7% (48.7 million) of usual residents in England and Wales identified their ethnic group within the high-level “White” category, a decrease from 86.0% (48.2 million) in the 2011 Census ...

Within the “White” ethnic group, 74.4% (44.4 million) of usual residents in England and Wales identified their ethnic group as “English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British”. This was a decrease from 80.5% (45.1 million) in 2011, and a continued decrease from 2001, when 87.5% (45.5 million) identified as “White: British”.

There was a decrease in the number of people identifying their ethnic group as “White: Irish”, from 531,000 (0.9%) in 2011 to 507,000 (0.9%) in 2021.

So according to the ONS, in the decade to March 2021we have declined by 700,000 or 1.55%.  We are 73.9% of the total population (my finger-in-the-air estimate, in the run-up to this release, was 72%, so naturally I am concluding that the Establishment is playing things down!).

On the colonising groups the ONS had this to say:

dg88w9jr.bmp

•  The next most common high-level ethnic group was “Asian, Asian British or Asian Welsh” accounting for 9.3% (5.5 million) of the overall population, this ethnic group also saw the largest percentage point increase from 2011, up from 7.5% (4.2 million people).

•  Across the 19 ethnic groups, the largest percentage point increase was seen in the number of people identifying through the “White: Other White” category (6.2%, 3.7 million in 2021, up from 4.4%, 2.5 million in 2011), this response option allows people to specify their ethnic group through writing it in; the increase may be partly explained by the new search-as-you-type functionality introduced for Census 2021, making it easier for people to self-define when completing the census online.

•  Large changes were also seen in the numbers of people identifying their ethnic group as “Other ethnic group: Any other ethnic group” (1.6%, 924,000 in 2021, up from 0.6%, 333,000 in 2011), and “Black, Black British, Black Welsh, Caribbean or African: African” (2.5%, 1.5 million in 2021, up from 1.8%, 990,000); both ethnic groups had the option to write in their response.

•  In England and Wales, 10.1% (2.5 million) of households consisted of members identifying with two or more different ethnic groups, an increase from 8.7% (2.0 million) in 2011.

In terms of significant milestones the Census reveals that “two-thirds of Londoners now identify as being from an ethnic minority, with just 36.8 per cent of people identifying as “white English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British”.  The natives are also now a minority in Birmingham, England’s second city.

A reminder of what the Oxford demographer David Coleman wrote in Standpoint Magazine in June 2016:

Even without migration … the White British population would cease to be the majority in the UK by the late 2060s. However, should current high levels of immigration persist for any length of time, that date would move closer to the present. Britain would then become unrecognisable to its present inhabitants. Some would welcome a brave new experiment, pioneering a wider world future. Others might say Finis Britanniae.

We have arrived at that strange moment, as we do every decade, when the Office of National Statistics begins to behave like a coquettish but no longer young and nubile dame sashaying across the stage of some ferociously vulgar 18th century farce.  First we are treated to the revealing of a stockinged ankle and, then, a flash of petty-coat hem.  By the beginning of March we should have the full, ghastly reveal with the final figures from the 2021 Census, collected this time last year.  Today, though, we just had a little, Replacement-confirming appetiser:

Migrants will stop Britain’s population from falling during next decade
ONS predicts 59,000 more deaths than births over the next 10 years, but increase in net migration will prevent population from declining

The UK population would fall in the next decade if it were not for migration, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has forecast for the first time.

In a report published on Wednesday, the ONS predicted 59,000 more deaths than births over the next 10 years because of a declining fertility rate, as women have fewer children and the number of elderly people increases sharply.

This would have meant the population declined for the first time since records began to 67 million, but for a 2.2 million increase in net migration taking the projected total for the UK to 69.2 million in mid-2030.

It represents a net 200,000 extra migrants settling in the UK each year for the next decade, according to the ONS estimates, despite Brexit ending free movement from Europe.

... However, ONS figures showed that the total fertility rate for England and Wales fell to 1.58 children per woman in 2020, the lowest since records began in 1938. One reason is the increasing numbers of women, now better educated than men, who are delaying children until their 30s as they pursue careers ...

The population of London has declined by 700,000 over the course of the lockdowns.  Bad news for neoliberals and Treasury officials who need to borrow against GDP.  Good news for the native Brits but also for BAME race hucksters.

There seem to be no official figures on it, but the assumption is that the two main components in that reduction are middle-class natives who have moved to quieter and safer towns, and East European migrant workers who have returned home (not only from the UK - there has been an exodus from Holland too, and probably the rest of Western Europe).  Population rises across Eastern Europe attest to that fact.  Bogdan and Yana will have to find something else to do, although both of them doubtless have been given the right to remain here under the Brexit deal, and will hustle back if the cab business and the nail-bar open again.

Long-term, London’s economic future depends on whether the middle-class exodus is permanent, ie, whether home-working is now a fixture and the office is expensive and superfluous.  If the middle-class does not return to office work it won’t need leafy, gentrified streets on which to live, and if it doesn’t need those it won’t partake of the city’s cultural and gastronomic pleasures.  The city itself will morph by degrees into a cross between Kinshasa and Chittagong, which will drive the multiculti-minded pols totally nuts.  Queue bussing policies, rural public sector housing policies, and endless ministerial anxiety over the “racist” British countryside.

Meanwhile, yesterday the Telegraph ran a photo essay on London in the 1960s.  Was it really better than today, they asked?

By Grégoire Canlorbe, American Renaissance, October 30, 2020:

       

Frank Kemp Salter is an Australian academic and researcher. Most of his career was at the Max Planck Research Centre for Human Ethology, in Andechs, Germany. He is best known for writings on ethnicity and ethnic interests. He studies political phenomena using conventional methods and the theories of behavioral biology. He has written about hierarchy (Emotions in Command, 1995), indoctrination (Ethnic Conflict and Indoctrination, 1998, edited with I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt), ethnic altruism and conflict (Welfare, Ethnicity and Altruism, 2002, Risky Transactions: Trust, Kinship and Ethnicity, 2004), and genetic interests (On Genetic Interests, 2003). In a review, Jared Taylor called On Genetic Interests “a vitally important contribution to our understanding of the significance of race and ethnicity in human affairs.” Dr. Salter has also been an adviser to Australia’s populist One Nation Party.

Grégoire Canlorbe: You write about the biological underpinnings of the obedience to one’s superiors in a hierarchy, especially in a bureaucracy. Please tell us more about this.

Frank Salter: In writing Emotions in Command, I observed command-giving in many organizations, from the military, to courts and parliaments, to nightclub doormen and theatrical rehearsals. The methods and observational categories were very much in the ethological tradition of Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, whom I later joined as a colleague at his Max Planck Research Centre.

I expected to find dominance, and did, but I also found friendly behavior. Effective leaders take care to soften commands and bind subordinates to them through generosity and fairness. In doing this, they are helped by what I called the “dominance infrastructure,” this being the organization’s set of rules backed by inducements and punishments. My observations confirmed part of Max Weber’s theory of bureaucracy: that it is a rule-governed hierarchy. Being rule governed, with obedience largely ensured by the dominance infrastructure, administrative positions can be filled by a wide range of personalities. Domineering behavior or brilliant leadership have negative and positive effects respectively, but are not required for the organization to function.

       

It was the discovery of the affiliative component of hierarchy that led me to search for an “affiliative infrastructure.” That search led me to study ethnic ties, which can bind large populations. I wanted to know if there such a thing as an “ethnic infrastructure”?

Grégoire Canlorbe: A popular claim by J. Philippe Rushton is that there are racial differences in ethnocentrism, with the least genetically heterogeneous ethnic groups being the most ethnocentric. Do you agree?

Frank Salter: Philippe Rushton’s theory was not the basis of my research into ethnic kinship. Instead, it was William Hamilton’s theory of inclusive fitness, which is generally accepted in ethology and evolutionary biology. The theory states that kinship bonds promote the reproduction of shared genes. Hamilton extended his theory to ethnic groups. I’m not aware of the finding you describe (that variations in genetic homogeneity and the degree of genetic similarity predict the level of ethnocentrism), though it has a certain plausibility. What I am aware of is that the degree of genetic homogeneity is related to solidarity, a sense of social cohesion; or, to put it differently, conflict increases when society becomes more genetically diverse. That finding, which is compatible with Hamilton’s theory, has been repeated again and again. The work of the late Tatu Vanhanen is an excellent example.

Nonetheless it seems that a more diverse society can actually lead to greater ethnocentrism: not at the level of society taken as whole, but at the level of the different ethnic components of society. As you can see in the case of America especially (and this is a universal trend in the West), white majorities are now increasingly ethnocentric, but it clearly doesn’t compare to the very high ethnocentrism of black or Latino minorities. This is an issue the media and the universities don’t understand, and never talk about.

READ MORE...

Who Is Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s Expected Supreme Court Pick? | WSJ

Could Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Some editorial first impressions of Amy Coney Barrett.

In the disciplined manner that she speaks of ruling, she indicates that overturning Roe v Wade is unlikely. That’s good if she cannot, but I say it without self righteousness. I can understand those who think abortion is barbaric and would never do it themselves. But then, that is what choice in the event is about.

Speaking of choice, as WN, we might hope that White girls be offered counseling, including the option of pre-natal care and adoption by a sponsoring adoptive couple.

And beyond the personal lives of those involved, it is a problem for White men if the consequence of pregnancy and the value of their seed can be terminated so easily; i.e., it certainly contributes to the slutdom and the general lack of caution in partner selection of contemporary girls, increased selection against beta males: while the old adage, beta males make families, alpha males make bastards.

Nevertheless, I am pro-choice for the same reason that I favor the death penalty: You can’t value life so much as to make it unlivable.

Again, if you think abortion is unconscionable then don’t have one. If you want to promote communities which heavily promote monogamy and group fidelity, practices which decrease unwanted pregnancy, counselling programs which offer the option of childcare assistance and adoption in the more rare event by implication, that’s well and good. On the other hand, if I had a daughter and she were impregnated by rape? Are you going to try to tell me that she can’t have an abortion you evil dirt bag?

Incest pregnancies and those which are known prenatally to have birth defects would be other easier cases for the pro choice side.

Finally, from a WN standpoint, with brown and black populations exploding, the ideal of “pro-life” puts White lives on the chopping block and not even all that indirectly.

Therefore, in this regard it is good that Barrett doesn’t seem as if she will be able to overturn Roe v Wade. It is good that Trump as opposed to Biden-Harris has the choice of the Supreme Court Candidate for reasons more broadly across the board, environmental issues being a marked negative against Trump’s picks. But for WN interests, the issue of Supreme Court Nominees has always been the strongest argument on behalf of Trump. And as WN we are not looking toward the continuation of the American project for decades anyway; we are looking to buy us a few more years for preparation.

As it is also true that WN is not prepared for the complete meltdown just yet and the kind of Supreme Court Justices that Biden-Harris would put in there, well, what happens when you think things couldn’t get any worse for Whites?

The problem is, while the Democrats and their politics on behalf of their voter base always do increase the YIN vertigo, the injustice for Whites and sadistic race-mix blender action, the Republicans (at least since I’ve been alive) always step in there for the YANG normalization of the resultant mix; “this is what real men, real Americans, real conservatives are about.” Trump is very much like that…

Amy Coney Barrett is very much of that ilk - conserving liberalism, from her Christian universal values which have her adopting two Haitians (!) when she already has five kids of her own; to her faithfulness to color blind American Constitutionalism. The best that she and the Republicans have to offer is a slower boil that will allow WN more time to organize, which we need. At worst, you know what they say about the slow boil and the frog.

The DNA Nations concept is the best option at this point for those who care about Whites and their means of extrication from this cataclysm to our EGI, as the border, demographic, power and rule structure of America has destiny already pretty much baked in the cake of its standard politics.

Jared is still Jared - about as good as one kosher friendly can be, including while being friendly to the kosher marketing perspective, its altercast for White identity and controlled discourse parameters thereof*, but at least in these interviews he’s explicitly addressing Jewish hypocrisy some - in terms of their disallowing ethnonationalism for others (viz., Zionism vs European ethnonatioalism). However, like Ganucci, diaspora Jews can (with dubious judgment on his part**) still be considered part of his own national ingroup provided that they toe/advance the marketing line.

* Though he’s begun to use the word “corrective”... and that’s nice.

** Jared considers European Jews to be (Hu)White; i.e., basically belonging in the same genetic category as Europeans and belonging to the European advocacy group provided that they toe the marketing line. This is extremely naïve; and it goes against the biological/genetic distinction between peoples that he is otherwise at pains to emphasize.