Why do you think the media will not report the demographic shift in UK?
And it implications for democracy?
Due to unlimited migration and birthrate ratios there is no situation where UK will remain an indigenous majority physically or in memes, there is also no current trend that shows Islam will not eventually (this may take over a 100 years) the dominant religious meme in the UK.
The implications of this are obvious the UK parliament has near unlimited power: These incoming people can eventually vote. This will, like in Belgium manifest eventually in political power and governance.
Considering the opinion polls of say Muslims, why do you think that this apparently horrific demographic shift is not being reported?
The bizzare thing is this is happening in almost every single western European nation. And every European descendant nation: they have no means to install strong immigration controls based on anything other than ecnomic values.
All seems very suspect, particularly when the same political class who allowed this now is slowly taking away everyone rights in order to "stop" this threat of "terror" ("Terror" in this case essentially adhering to the Quran), there appears also to be no interest in checking the power of government nor to allow any democratic reforms such as referendums. Nor any serious citizenship or immigration reforms other than parties such as UKIP or the BNP. Considering the shift that has happened due to new labour policies (also over 65% of Ethnic votes goes to Labour) and no reversal under Conservatives The state is simply becoming more and more powerful. There is no particular way to reverse this once certain demographic shifts happen:
There is no situation where the demographic trends can be reversed even if immigration is stopped. This will eventually lead to a parliament dominated by socialism, non-native and Islamic MP's.
We have done a simulation and study of this (fairly complex, many values and many scenarios, based on previous trends and other national trends) recently in our department (us students have anyway) and there is no situation whereby this does not happen other than physically expelling people or changes to Citizenship.
The public funded system also collapses (with a variety of timescales) in 10 out of 10 scenarios as there is no way a planned economy can function in the same manner as a free market, the value of "taxpayer" always ends up running out of viable taxable capital as the public accelerates voting for large state parties (the self-bribery effect, all public funds are essentially expropriated) (after 25 - 125 years) and the vast majority of the native middle class leave the system for other systems (with increasing % chance per generation). A similar effect happened during the roman empire: the citizens eventually ran out of capital to fund arms for the army that were of quality compared to the "barbarians". Visable effects of that would be concepts such as so called "white-flight" (an London Isolate was ran based on the 620,000 total indigenous movement from London over the 2011 -2011 period) and strong trends for indigenous populations to emigrate to anglo-nations such as Australia. When put in tandem with the public funded system this leads to things such as this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2974170/NHS-calls-British-doctors-working-Australia-come-help-shortfall-numbers-UK.html
Which we all found rather amusing considering the study we are running.
No current demographic projection shows this (large state socialism and non-native meme vote) naturally being able to reverse with an open border or even with a closed border. The data is currently being processed in a report which will made available for the dissertation results in the next few months.
Thoughts on this?
Due to unlimited migration and birthrate ratios there is no situation where UK will remain an indigenous majority physically or in memes, there is also no current trend that shows Islam will not eventually (this may take over a 100 years) the dominant religious meme in the UK.
The implications of this are obvious the UK parliament has near unlimited power: These incoming people can eventually vote. This will, like in Belgium manifest eventually in political power and governance.
Considering the opinion polls of say Muslims, why do you think that this apparently horrific demographic shift is not being reported?
The bizzare thing is this is happening in almost every single western European nation. And every European descendant nation: they have no means to install strong immigration controls based on anything other than ecnomic values.
All seems very suspect, particularly when the same political class who allowed this now is slowly taking away everyone rights in order to "stop" this threat of "terror" ("Terror" in this case essentially adhering to the Quran), there appears also to be no interest in checking the power of government nor to allow any democratic reforms such as referendums. Nor any serious citizenship or immigration reforms other than parties such as UKIP or the BNP. Considering the shift that has happened due to new labour policies (also over 65% of Ethnic votes goes to Labour) and no reversal under Conservatives The state is simply becoming more and more powerful. There is no particular way to reverse this once certain demographic shifts happen:
There is no situation where the demographic trends can be reversed even if immigration is stopped. This will eventually lead to a parliament dominated by socialism, non-native and Islamic MP's.
We have done a simulation and study of this (fairly complex, many values and many scenarios, based on previous trends and other national trends) recently in our department (us students have anyway) and there is no situation whereby this does not happen other than physically expelling people or changes to Citizenship.
The public funded system also collapses (with a variety of timescales) in 10 out of 10 scenarios as there is no way a planned economy can function in the same manner as a free market, the value of "taxpayer" always ends up running out of viable taxable capital as the public accelerates voting for large state parties (the self-bribery effect, all public funds are essentially expropriated) (after 25 - 125 years) and the vast majority of the native middle class leave the system for other systems (with increasing % chance per generation). A similar effect happened during the roman empire: the citizens eventually ran out of capital to fund arms for the army that were of quality compared to the "barbarians". Visable effects of that would be concepts such as so called "white-flight" (an London Isolate was ran based on the 620,000 total indigenous movement from London over the 2011 -2011 period) and strong trends for indigenous populations to emigrate to anglo-nations such as Australia. When put in tandem with the public funded system this leads to things such as this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2974170/NHS-calls-British-doctors-working-Australia-come-help-shortfall-numbers-UK.html
Which we all found rather amusing considering the study we are running.
No current demographic projection shows this (large state socialism and non-native meme vote) naturally being able to reverse with an open border or even with a closed border. The data is currently being processed in a report which will made available for the dissertation results in the next few months.
Thoughts on this?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Rakas21
I question why you think Britain will become socialist given that Labour is not.
But yeah, I expect Islamaphobia will increase.
But yeah, I expect Islamaphobia will increase.
>Labour isn't socialist! They just expanded the size of the state exponentially, and welfare state.
Nice try.
Original post by HigherMinion
>Labour isn't socialist! They just expanded the size of the state exponentially, and welfare state.
Nice try.
Nice try.
If they allow private property, they are capitalist. Labour is capitalist (good thing too)
Original post by yo radical one
If they allow private property, they are capitalist. Labour is capitalist (good thing too)
You can see where their leanings are heading. More towards Scandinavia, further away from a traditional Britain. It starts with heavy welfare, then high taxes, then full socialism is in swing. Communism is the next step, where everything belongs to the state. Labour are socialist through and through.
Original post by HigherMinion
>Labour isn't socialist! They just expanded the size of the state exponentially, and welfare state.
Nice try.
Nice try.
Labour scrapped their commitments to worker ownership of the means of production when Mr. Blair took hold in the 1990s. He was a firm believer in neoliberalism. The man was a Tory in a red tie.
Thatcher's greatest achievement? "Tony Blair and New Labour".
Despite all the claims of Red Ed Milliband remains command of a centre-right party.
The mind boggles at claims that Labour are still socialist.
(edited 9 years ago)
You have to view britain like a ship that has hit an iceberg. It's going down.
The inability to control borders is a symptom of decline, not a cause of it. Britain isn't just going to carry on as before just with a non white majority. The country will collapse and Balkanise.
But the situation is not confined to Britain. It's continent wide.
And now that Islam has a footing on the continent civil War is coming again to Europe, it's inevitable now.
This 70 years of peace since WW2 was unique. You could say islamic terrorism in Europe is the first firing shots of the coming war.
The inability to control borders is a symptom of decline, not a cause of it. Britain isn't just going to carry on as before just with a non white majority. The country will collapse and Balkanise.
But the situation is not confined to Britain. It's continent wide.
And now that Islam has a footing on the continent civil War is coming again to Europe, it's inevitable now.
This 70 years of peace since WW2 was unique. You could say islamic terrorism in Europe is the first firing shots of the coming war.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Rinsed
Labour is the most authoritarian by an absolute country mile. I genuinely question whether you know what the word means, it is not just a byword for socially-conservative.
BNP, UKIP and Conservatives are more authoritarian than Labour. Keep up with the times.
Original post by HigherMinion
>Labour isn't socialist! They just expanded the size of the state exponentially, and welfare state.
Nice try.
Nice try.
Labour expanded the size of the state by around ~10% to a level of tax and spend that was comparable to Germany. As much as i dislike Labour, to call them socialists or even social democrats is a very large stretch. This was a move from the right to the center. Thankfully the coalition is moving us back to the right in tax and spend.
Here is a comparison from 09 (France and Greece being genuine social democrats/socialist with Switzerland and the Baltic States being the most free economies). What Labour did is move us from a level comparable to the Baltics to a level comparable to Germany.
Public spending / GDP in Europe.
Legend: maroon > 55%, red 50–55%, orange 45–50%, yellow 40–45%, green 35–40%, blue 30–35%
Original post by Rinsed
On what measure?
I mean, I'll give you the BNP, whose policies (immigration aside) are after all closer to Labour than the other two parties you mention.
I mean, I'll give you the BNP, whose policies (immigration aside) are after all closer to Labour than the other two parties you mention.
You do realise that both left-wingers and right-wingers can be authoritarian?
Original post by Rinsed
Yes. I asked you on what measure the Conservatives and UKIP be more authoritarian than Labour. You don't seem very forthcoming.
This isn't to say either don't have authoritarian elements, just that Labour is far worse.
This isn't to say either don't have authoritarian elements, just that Labour is far worse.
I would say that Labour, UKIP and Conservatives are about the same in terms of authoritarianism.
Anyways, for UKIP:
Removal of the Human Rights Act (why would they want to do that if not to reduce our rights).
Liquidation of prisoners voting rights.
Put an end to political correctness. (Ironically, this mostly applies to the government. By doing that they will be increasing the power of the government. Plus, people are allowed to express their opinions. It is just that some have good manners aka 'political correctness'.)
Creation of a monoculture with traditional British values. (Does that mean being a middle-class white male?)
All in all, UKIP is a traditional, reactionary party under the facade of libertarianism.
Original post by Rinsed
Yes. I asked you on what measure the Conservatives and UKIP be more authoritarian than Labour. You don't seem very forthcoming.
This isn't to say either don't have authoritarian elements, just that Labour is far worse.
This isn't to say either don't have authoritarian elements, just that Labour is far worse.
Who will you be voting for (if you don't mind me asking)?
Original post by Rinsed
Repealing the Human Rights Act is not about getting rid of human rights, but the repatriation of justice. The same rights would be enshrined in a new Bill of Rights, but power would rest in British courts and legal institutions, and of course that organ of our democracy, parliament. Many liberals support the cause, such as David Davis who notoriously forced a by-election to protest authoritarian terror legislation. Disliking the European courts is not really authoritarian in my book.
Prisoners currently don't have voting rights to liquidate, and Labour aren't proposing to introduce them as far as I know. This is a good example of the above. The British courts hold that your liberties can be curtailed when you are lawfully convicted of a crime, as indeed what else is the point of prison? The European courts think voting rights should have special protection. It's an exercise in where do you draw the line, but we shouldn't think that the ECHR is particularly liberal, and British courts authoritarian. Arguably the reverse is true.
Political correctness is a means of shutting down debate by criticising the speaker's right to say certain things. It's a decidedly authoritarian dogma, which denies the liberal attitude that people should be allowed to say even things you profoundly disagree with. For every racist complaining they can't shout at black people in public because of PC innit, there is a university closing down debates on abortion, a council turning a blind eye to abuse in certain communities, or a pastor being arrested for handing out leaflets on his faith.
As for the last one, even if it were true I'm not sure it would necessarily be authoritarian.
Now compare Labour, with their anti-terror legislation (which they used for, amongst other things, arresting hecklers at the Labour party conference and the tapping of journalists' phones), hate-speech laws and the equalities act (both of which, however nice-sounding they may be, have been used to ride roughshod over personal liberty) and innumerable petty regulations.
Conservative. They're not perfect, and I'm not convinced by Cameron, but I just hate all the alternatives far more.
Prisoners currently don't have voting rights to liquidate, and Labour aren't proposing to introduce them as far as I know. This is a good example of the above. The British courts hold that your liberties can be curtailed when you are lawfully convicted of a crime, as indeed what else is the point of prison? The European courts think voting rights should have special protection. It's an exercise in where do you draw the line, but we shouldn't think that the ECHR is particularly liberal, and British courts authoritarian. Arguably the reverse is true.
Political correctness is a means of shutting down debate by criticising the speaker's right to say certain things. It's a decidedly authoritarian dogma, which denies the liberal attitude that people should be allowed to say even things you profoundly disagree with. For every racist complaining they can't shout at black people in public because of PC innit, there is a university closing down debates on abortion, a council turning a blind eye to abuse in certain communities, or a pastor being arrested for handing out leaflets on his faith.
As for the last one, even if it were true I'm not sure it would necessarily be authoritarian.
Now compare Labour, with their anti-terror legislation (which they used for, amongst other things, arresting hecklers at the Labour party conference and the tapping of journalists' phones), hate-speech laws and the equalities act (both of which, however nice-sounding they may be, have been used to ride roughshod over personal liberty) and innumerable petty regulations.
Conservative. They're not perfect, and I'm not convinced by Cameron, but I just hate all the alternatives far more.
I agree with you on free speech. However, strict limits on immigration, intolerance to people who do not conform to social norms and wanting monoculturalism sound quite authoritarian to me.
Anyways, I don't really support Ed Miliband, so I'll not be voting Labour this election.
Who would you like to be a Prime Minister instead of Cameron?
When the BBC reported whites becoming a minority in London they stated it as wonderful diversity.
Someone should have challenged the
Reporter and asked if Palestine and Tibet have acquired wonderful diversity.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Someone should have challenged the
Reporter and asked if Palestine and Tibet have acquired wonderful diversity.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Concerned135
When the BBC reported whites becoming a minority in London they stated it as wonderful diversity.
Someone should have challenged the
Reporter and asked if Palestine and Tibet have acquired wonderful diversity.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Someone should have challenged the
Reporter and asked if Palestine and Tibet have acquired wonderful diversity.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Whites are not a minority. White-British are a minority.
Original post by Rakas21
Whites are not a minority. White-British are a minority.
Well it's quite an achievement seeing as the country was 99.9% white British before 1950.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Rakas21
Whites are not a minority. White-British are a minority.
I know how much intellectuals like to ignore national borders, so I could easily claim Whites a global minority. Indigenous Brits are a minority, yes. The natives are the only ones who matter to the structure of the nation.
Unless, of course, only natives can vote... Then there would be no vote-buying. Labour would be dead in the water.
Original post by perspiracious
I agree with you on free speech. However, strict limits on immigration, intolerance to people who do not conform to social norms and wanting monoculturalism sound quite authoritarian to me.
Anyways, I don't really support Ed Miliband, so I'll not be voting Labour this election.
Who would you like to be a Prime Minister instead of Cameron?
Anyways, I don't really support Ed Miliband, so I'll not be voting Labour this election.
Who would you like to be a Prime Minister instead of Cameron?
Oh I don't know. Anyone but May really. Boris would be OK but he's a scandal waiting to happen. I'd prefer someone like Gove or David Davis (not necessarily either, just someone more of their ilk) to throw their hat into the ring, but we'll have to wait and see. It could be years before Cameron leaves.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
