Sunday, 8 November 2020

US Election 2020: A Lesson in Race, Demographics, Not “Fraud”

 As the Trump faction scrambles to lodge a barrage of dubious legal appeals against the outcome of the US Presidential election 2020, a sober assessment of the racial voting patterns—and American demographics—provides a much simpler reason for the election result:  obvious racial demographics.

I would urge everyone to consider the following before jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon, which in this particular case, is being driven by the race-denying "conservatives."



In 2020, the majority of under 18 year olds in America were nonwhite.

By 2027 -- that, is, in six year's time, the majority of under 29 year olds in America will be nonwhite.


What this means is that in 2020, the majority of under 23 year olds in America are nonwhite.

Exit polls have revealed what this meant in terms of racial turnout for the candidates.

(Bear in mind that the US Federal definition of "white" includes all Arabs, all Middle Easterners, and anyone else who is not "black," "Latino,' or "native American.'


57% of whites voted for Trump

42 % of whites voted for Biden


87% of blacks voted for Biden

12% of blacks voted for Trump


66% of "Latino" voters voted for Biden.

27% of "Latino" voters voted for Trump.




In a nutshell, Biden won the election through a combination of white liberals (a minority of the white vote) and massive nonwhite support.

This also explains why the results from the major metropolitan areas  (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Raleigh etc) most often mentioned in the “fraud” conspiracy theories, went overwhelmingly for Biden.

There was no doubt some cheating (have you ever seen an election without some?) but it is highly doubtful that this was of such a large scale as to influence millions of votes.

These fraud conspiracy theories all ignore the reality of race and its effect upon society, and indeed, civilization itself.  In that way, they are even dangerous in themselves.

It was, quite frankly, surprising that Trump won in 2016, and would have been doubly surprising if he had won in 2020.

Furthermore, it is also clear that if the Republican Party had not lost in 2020, they would most certainly have lost in 2024.

This leads on to the inevitable question: What now for white Americans?

Firstly, It is clear that democracy, or elections, offers no hope of salvation for white America. The Third World invasion is now so complete, that it is impossible to win elections, even with the majority of the white vote, as 2020 has demonstrated.

Given this fact, what does the future hold for white Americans?  There are essentially two paths:

1. Just let things slide so that whites become a minority in the country they founded. This will lead to America becoming a large South Africa, which contains a shrinking white minority, hated and despised because they still are the only ones who can create wealth and progress; blamed for all nonwhite failures to achieve; and subjected to ever-increasing nonwhite violent criminality as the have-nots seize what little the whites have left.

Or

2. Whites can congregate in an area (geographical consolidation), form a majority in those areas, and steadily push towards secession as the US collapses into Third World status.

Orania in South Africa provides a perfect parallel.  If whites trapped in South Africa do not start congregating in Orania and de facto seize possession of the Northern Cape to the western seaboard, they will be ultimately be exterminated. It is as simple as that.

Similarly, if white Americans do not physically congregate and de facto seize possession of a state or states in America, they too will be ultimately be exterminated. It is as simple as that.

This is the ultimate law of nature: those who form the majority population in a territory, determine the nature of the civilization in that region.

Anything else, such as conspiracy theories about "cheating" or "betrayal" are meaningless diversionary nonsense, and distract from a clear understanding of the racial factor as the ultimate determinant of history. 

Thursday, 10 September 2020

Blame Whitey Part 5901: "Systemic Racist" Clicks South Africa Advertisement Produced by Nonwhite-led team

Those who follow news from South Africa will know that the big news there currently is that a health and beauty chain called Clicks is currently under attack after publishing an absurd series of images on its website which contrasted "dry and damaged hair" with fine and healthy, normal hair."

The images the company used showed nonwhite hair as "dry and damaged" and white hair as "fine" and "normal" hair.



Predictably, there has been outrage from the blacks, who, quite correctly I may add, took the depiction of white hair as "normal” as an unbridled insult.

The radical Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party, which has a sizeable following and representation in the South African Parliament, launched its militants to  attack Clicks stores across the country, and some were severely damaged and firebombed in the resulting fracas.



At the same time, the media and politicians all climbed on the bandwagon, blaming, of course, white "systemic racism" for producing the advertisement. This was used as yet another example of how evil whites are by their very nature etc. etc.

This narrative was, of course, carried our in the international media, where the “systemic racism” nonsense was, of course, faithfully replicated.

Now, however, it has emerged that the offending advertisements weren’t even produced by whites, but by a nonwhite-led marketing team!

As Clicks CEO Vikesh Ramsunder (an Indian fellow) told Cape Talk radio:

Clicks said in a media statement that all employees responsible for publishing the advertisement have also been suspended.

CEO Vikesh Ramsunder revealed yesterday that the digital team was made up of two black employees, two white employees, and a coloured manager.

“How they didn’t find this (advertisement) insensitive is beyond me… It shows that I have a lot of work to do in terms of sensitivity training,” Ramsunder told Cape Talk.

Ramsunder is right: how could anyone have thought that this advertisement would not give offence?

Given the widespread "affirmative action" (a code word for anti-white discrimination), it can be taken for granted that the whites on the "digital team" were lower ranking staff, and that the two blacks and the coloured manager were the final arbiters of this advertisement.

So there’s the answer.

Yet, in spite of this, whites will still get the blame for "systemic racism," because, as we know, whites are always to blame, for everything.

* Who owns Clicks?  It is a publicly listed company, and according to the 2019 Annual Company report, "more than 70% of the group’s shares are now held by offshore fund managers." (page 80). Hmm.


Wednesday, 29 July 2020

South Africa: The Time Has Come to Punish Whites—With Apartheid

It’s been more than 25 years since the ANC came to power in South Africa. Even though this is a longer period than it took the Boers to establish no less than three republics during the 1800s, it seems as if the new South Africa is still mired in endless blaming of white people for various problems the country faces.

It is almost comical to see, for example, serious allegations that white people have somehow sabotaged ESKOM. As if there is a deliberate program or desire on the part of white people to make black people look bad.

But it does not end there. White people are apparently also to blame for the collapse in the educational system, the high crime rate, economic problems facing black people, and in fact, almost everything else about which black people complain.


The handful of black people who point out that whites are not to blame for everything, are of course ignored or dismissed as Uncle Toms.

There is of course, no justification at all to blame white people for everything that is going wrong in South Africa, a quarter of a century after the ANC came to power. In fact, as the older and honest people of all races know, apartheid itself died long before 1994. The so-called petty apartheid systems had started to be dismantled in the 1980s: influx control was abandoned in the mid-1980s, and the group areas and mixed marriages acts, for example, were no longer enforced from the late 1980s onward.

In fact, the last whole white Parliament set in 1982, even if the then tricameral system was rejected by the ANC and other opponents. That rejection does not nullify the fact that the tricameral system and its resultant social implications was a major break with apartheid as it had been originally designed.

This means that apartheid — as it is blamed for everything — actually vanished more than 25 years ago. Yet still, white people are blamed for everything.

Perhaps then, the time has come to punish white people properly for apartheid.

Perhaps the time has come to give white people exactly what is claimed they gave to black people: perhaps the time has come to give white people apartheid!

If the government or the EFF, or anyone else, really wants to punish white people then they should make them live under the sort of policies under which they claim black people suffered so much.

And here we are not talking about just affirmative action, BEE, or job reservation, removing white symbols, town names, statues, Afrikaans language educational systems, or “land reform”—as they  are already doing—but the whole caboodle.

Why not go all the way, and teach these white people exactly how real apartheid worked?

Why not force white people into their own schools?

Why not force white people into having their own residential areas?

Why not force white people to socially segregate?

Why not take away the vote from white people? (not like their votes make any difference in the new South Africa anyway).

And finally, why not force white people into their own homeland in some barren area?

Some place where they will only have the vote to form their own government in that area, just like a bantustan?  And no vote in the rest of South Africa!

Perhaps the northern Cape might be a suitable white bantustan? After all, it is barren and relatively unpopulated.

They could even forcibly relocate white people to this white bantustan. With trucks, perhaps. Dump them there and let them get on with it.

Think of all the possibilities this would open up.

The government takes revenge on the white people in the way that they say white people exploited blacks.

They could also then demonstrate to the world just how evil apartheid was, as this white bantustan collapses.

Let the white bantustan build its own schools!  And let them collapse!

Let the white bantustan build its own economy! And let it collapse!

Let the white bantustan start its own farms! And let them collapse!

That will teach them how evil apartheid was.

And yes, then black people could have the majority of the country, the rich farm areas, the cities.....

Jam these white people into a bantustan, enforce apartheid against them, and let them get on with it! That will show them!

Best of all, they could get rid of these pesky white people once and for all.

Applying apartheid to white people would immediately stop their interference in the country's economy, politics, and so on.

So let’s stop messing around.

Why doesn’t the government dish out to white people what they say white people dished out to them.

It’s only fair, right, and long overdue. Make white people suffer under apartheid!


Friday, 11 August 2017

Ignorance or Maliciousness? Race, DNA, the Daily Mail and Bledington Village

The Daily Mail has just produced another article—as part of its relentless attacks on the concept of race and the validity of racial differences—which luridly claims that an English village in Gloucestershire is in fact not “British” at all, according to DNA tests—but this claim, is, as usual, based on nothing but ignorance so crushing and obvious that it must be malicious.

The Daily Mail informs its readers that the study was carried out in March by genealogy company Ancestry. The article then helpfully has a video promoting one of that company’s products, confirming that the article is in fact one of the sponsored features for which the Daily Mail is so famous.
Headlined “The English village that's not very English at all!,” the article says that “residents in a Cotswolds community have DNA from 18 different parts of the world despite 95% saying their heritage is white British.”
It then goes on to claim that the residents “have DNA from 18 different places” and that the “average villager's DNA is just 42% British” even though “the last census lists the community as 95 per cent white British.”
The village is, therefore, the article claims, “actually a hotbed of diversity”—and this theme is commonly maintained throughout the article to reinforce the claim, of course, that white British people—and by implication, Europeans general—are all actually racially-mixed and there is no such thing as a “pure” race.
The major claims made with regard to the villagers are as follows:
“Their DNA is from all over the country, with less than half of it coming from Great Britain.”“The DNA breakdown of the average Bledington resident was: Great Britain (Anglo Saxon) 42.54%; Europe West (The region covered today by France and Germany) 20.61%; Ireland/Scotland/Wales 17.03%; Scandinavia 10.06%; Iberian Peninsula (Spain/Portugal) 2.80%; Italy/Greece 1.79%; Europe East 1.66%; European Jewish 1.58%;  Finland/Northwest 1.03%; Caucasus 0.46%; West Asia 0.24%; Asia South 0.11%; Asia Central 0.03%; Africa North 0.03%; Native American 0.01%; Asia East 0.01%; Middle East 0.01%; Melanesia 0.01%.”
It is from these latter statistics that the claim is then manufactured that the villagers “have DNA from all over the world,” and, therefore, they are “not white British” as they think they are.
All of this is, of course, pure nonsense.
Firstly, there is no such thing as “British DNA” in the same way that there is no such thing as a “British race.” To even claim such a thing, is an indication of crushing, dreadful, ignorance.
In this regard, I am reminded of what T. Lothrop Stoddard, the famous American racial scientist wrote in his book, Racial Realities in Europe, namely that “nationality is what people think theyare, race is what they really are.”
There is no “British” race, “French” race, “German” race, or, even for that matter, “Scandinavian” race.
There are, as the science of genetics has confirmed, various races as defined by phenotype and genotype—phenotype by their physical appearance, and genotype by the allele frequency found in their genetic makeup.
Because all humans share the same basic genes, genetic diversity comes about not in the genes per se, but in the frequency, or repetition, of certain alleles, which, the official definition says, are “any of several forms of a gene, usually arising through mutation, that are responsible for hereditary variation.”
Race can be determined by studying these alleles, as all honest geneticists know.
In this way, race is not defined by nationality, but by genetic commonality. It is therefore ridiculous to say that there is a “British race.” There is only a British part of a common European genetic base, which certainly shares its base with the rest of the European gene pool—as do all other European “nations.”
To thus claim that the villagers of Bledington have “mixed ancestry” because their DNA is overwhelmingly European, is to deliberately—and most likely, maliciously, distort the reality of DNA and race.
However, the worst part of the Daily Mail article comes with the non-European ancestry claimed for the villagers of Bledington, and that paper’s trumpeting of this as “evidence” of their “diversity.”
These tiny amounts of non-European DNA (“Caucasus 0.46%; West Asia 0.24%; Asia South 0.11%; Asia Central 0.03%; Africa North 0.03%; Native American 0.01%; Asia East 0.01%; Middle East 0.01%; Melanesia 0.01%”) are what is known in geneticist circles as “Trace DNA”—and are never used to claim ethnicity because they are so small as to be classed as “unreliable.”
The reason for this classification is because of the nature of the common gene pool of humans, which means that almost everyone has some genes in common.
Ancestry—the company which sponsored the Daily Mail article—coyly calls these Trace DNA elements “Low Confidence Regions” for the very reason that the name implies.



In a DNA estimate, low confidence regions are areas for which there's a small amount of DNA evidence found in a sample. All ethnicities with predicted percentages of less than 4.5% appear as low confidence regions.To calculate your ethnicity, we run 40 separate tests on randomly selected portions of your DNA. The bottom number in a range is the smallest amount of an ethnicity that appeared during the 40 analyses, and the top number in a range is the largest amount of an ethnicity that appeared.When an ethnicity has a range that includes zero (meaning that in at least one of the 40 tests, that ethnicity didn’t appear) and doesn’t exceed 15%, or when the predicted percentage is less than 4.5%, the ethnicity is included in an estimate as a low confidence region.The larger the amount of an ethnicity that appears in a test, the more confidence we’re able to attribute to our estimate of that ethnicity. Because low confidence regions are regions for which smaller amounts of evidence appears, our confidence in the percentage of DNA that comes from a low confidence region is necessarily low.


To put this into even plainer English: Ancestry’s DNA tests specifically say that any “ethnicity” test they perform which produces a result of less than 4.5 percent (and as much as 15 percent) is a “low confidence” result—which means that a result of that size cannot be taken as accurate.
Given that this fact is publicly available—and common knowledge among all people who have any knowledge on the topic—it becomes clear that the latest Daily Mail article is either crushingly ignorant, or deliberately misleading.
I think I know which of the two it is.

* Some of the material in this blog post comes from my forthcoming book Race and Racial Differences: A Handbook for the 21st Century.

Wednesday, 18 May 2016

Interview on Radio3Fourteen


Interviewed by Lana Lokteff from Red Ice Creations. "Arthur joins us for a look at how the aspects of racial homogeneity and racial disillusionment (multiculturalism) have historically contributed to the rise and fall of civilizations.

"We begin by considering the essential questions of what causes culture and what happens when a civilization’s creators vanish.

"Arthur talks about the misconceptions of early English colonialism and the vastly different process of mass foreign invasion transpiring in the West today.

"He addresses the proclivity of the White race to explore the world and provide humanitarian support to the less fortunate, along with the consequences of these interventions.

"We discuss some logistics of the Out of Africa theory and the role of environment in racial differences, touching on the bureaucratic baloney that thwarts modern day archaeologists from properly investigating tremendous troves of ancient human remains holding clues of Europeans’ origins in the Northern Hemisphere.

"Then, Arthur explains the dire reality of the population replacement events being orchestrated by the West’s rulers, and we deliberate how to wake up the ill-informed masses to their looming extinction.

"He also gives an account of his life in South Africa during the ANC’s takeover, relating the hard fact that demographics ultimately dictate the rules.

"Our conversation rounds off with thoughts on the viability of recruiting quality Europeans to create a great ethnostate and the terrific potential that exists when enough Whites are able to unlearn their self-defeatist programming and abandon the egalitarian fantasies driving their cultures to demise."

Wednesday, 6 April 2016

10 Greatest Moments in White History

I was recently asked by someone in the Czech Republic what I thought were the ten greatest moments in white history.

This required some thought, because there are, of course, so many great moments. But after thinking about it a lot, I set up a basic guideline to determine the most significant moments, and the list is below.

The guideline I used is that the event (“moment”) must have been significant enough to have affected the present-day world, and not merely be of historical importance.

So for example, really great events, such as the Battle of Thermopylae, where the Spartans held off the Persians, while being incredible in themselves, did not directly affect the creation of the modern world, and therefore, they didn’t make it onto this list.

Having said that, here is my list of the ten greatest moments in white history, sorted by date, from earliest to most recent.

Anybody who can think of any others, feel free to add them in the comments.

1.  The Battle of Nedao, 454 AD. The Germans—and other Europeans—who had survived nearly 70 years of Hun rule, finally defeated the Huns and drove them back into the East. The Germans, as victors over the Huns, became famous among their racial cousins, with the Icelandic word for German “Thodthverdthur” still translating literally as “peoples’ defender.”

2. The Battle of Lechfeld 955 A.D. An Asiatic army organized by the Magyars (NOT to be confused with present-day Hungarians!) is halted in its attempt to invade Europe by a German army under Saxon King Otto I.

King Otto I.
3. The Battle of Kulikovo, 8 September 1380. White Russians under Prince Dmitri of Moscow defeat the Asiatic armies of the Golden Horde under the command of Mamai. This battle effectively broke the Mongol invasion and occupation of southern Russia, and prepared the way for the European reconquest of all those lands.

Prince Dmitry Donskoy.
4. 1436.  The German Johannes Gutenberg invents the printing press, making the first breakthrough in mass communications upon which almost all inventions since then have relied upon.

Johannes Gutenberg and his printing press.
5. The Fall of Granada, January 2, 1492: The last Moorish stronghold in Spain surrenders to the victorious Spanish army, led personally by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella. It was the first time in 770 years that all of Spain was once again under European control.

The Fall of Granada.
6. Christopher Columbus sights land in the Americas, October 12, 1492. Although looking for India, Columbus discovered the Americas, sparking off the settlement of North America which became the USA.

Christopher Columbus.
7. The Siege of Vienna, September 1683. The Turkish Ottoman invasion is defeated and prevented from overrunning all of Europe. The Turks are then pushed back south down the Balkans in an extended war involving almost all European nations, only ending in the early 19th Century when they are finally expelled from their last strongholds.

The Hero of Vienna, Jan Sobieski.
8. The Battle of Navarino, October 20, 1827, was a great European naval victory which gave birth to present-day Greece. This victory spurred on further victories for the European forces on land which culminated in the independence of Greece under European protection in 1830.

The Battle of Navarino.
9. 1948. American physicists Walter Houser Brattain, John Bardeen, and William Bradford Shockley invent the transistor, a device which laid the basis for the electronic device revolution—including computers—of the 20th and 21st centuries.

William Bradford Shockley.
10. The Apollo 11 Moon Landing in 1969. No technological feat has ever been greater, or more daring. 

The Apollo II crew.

Brexit is Irrelevant to Britain’s Future

The June 23 vote on British membership of the European Union is meaningless to the UK’s future—because longstanding immigration policies will have plunged Britain into minority white and Third World status by 2066.

This racial demographic shift will happen no matter what the referendum’s outcome might be—a fact which all of the “vote no” campaigns stoically ignore—and can only be averted by dramatic—and unlikely—internal political reform.

The projection that Britain will become majority nonwhite is not some flight of fancy or delusional rant.

Professor David Coleman, Supernumerary Fellow in Human Sciences and University Professor in Demography at St. John’s College, Oxford, produced a study in 2013 which showed that the aftereffects of “decades of migration” and natural reproduction rates will have made the UK the West’s “most ethnically diverse nation after 2050.”

Furthermore, Professor Coleman said, white Britons will be an outright minority in the UK by the year 2066.


His findings were in a report compiled for the Migration Observatory, part of Oxford University’s Centre on MigrationPolicy and Society (COMPAS).

He wrote: “On current trends European populations will become more ethnically diverse, with the possibility that today’s majority ethnic groups will no longer comprise a numerical majority.”

Professor Coleman said migration has become the “primary driver of demographic change.”

According to the data—extracted from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) Census—as of 2011, around 20 percent of people in the UK are “nonwhite or non-British.”

This percentage, the report said, expected to rise to a quarter by 2025, a third by 2040, and reach up to 38 percent by 2050.

Declining birth rates among white Britons is another factor, he said. In England and Wales, 25 percent of births were already to foreign-born mothers.

White Minority in UK by 2066

The report concluded that “the crossover for the whole country when the combined population of all ethnic minority groups together would exceed the population of white British will occur at around 2066.”

Professor Coleman’s figures are from 2012, it should be remembered. By 2016, the situation is much worse.



The report showed that of the 3,289 children born at Ealing Hospital, from February 2010 to February 2011, some 2,655 were to “foreign nationals.”

These foreign nationals included mothers from 104 different countries, including India (537 babies), Sri Lanka (270), Somalia (260), Afghanistan (200), and Pakistan (208).

There were only 634 babies born to “British mothers” at Ealing hospital—although not even that figure determined if these “British” mothers were second of third generation Third World immigrants, a highly possible fact given that whites are already an outright minority in London.

In fact, the only thing that can be said with any certainty is that the 389 Polish mothers who gave birth at Ealing hospital during that time, would have been white.

London Already Majority Third World

The trends are obvious for anyone wishing to see them. According to the 2011 ONS Census, 45 percent of Londoners described themselves as "white British"—a drop from the 58 percent who did so just ten years earlier.


If that was not enough, the next generation of Londoners—that is, those currently in school—should tell anyone who wants to know, what that city will look like in another ten years.

According to 2012 figures released by the UK’sDepartment for Education (DFE), some 69 percent of all school children in Greater London are nonwhite.

The DFE figures show that for all of London—divided into “inner” and an “outer”” regions for statistical purposes, there were, in 2012, a total of 498,445 pupils at school.

Inner London had 176,920 pupils, of whom 81.3 percent of primary pupils were officially classified as “nonwhite British” by the DFE.

For secondary schools in Inner London, the DFE said that 80.7 percent are “nonwhite British.”

In Outer London, the DFE said, 62.1 percent of primary school children are “nonwhite British,” and 58.7 percent of secondary schoolchildren are “nonwhite British.”

Averaged out, this means that some 67.25 percent of all of London’s schoolchildren are “nonwhite British”—and this would have been in 2012, four years ago.

If London is already 55 percent non-British, the implications of the school-age population entering the adult population will dramatically tip the population balance even more within the next five years.

This has nothing to do with the EU, and everything to do with the immigration policies pursued by successive British governments, for which the people of Britain have continuously voted.

Birmingham Already Majority Third World

Birmingham is Britain’s second largest city—and it is in exactly the same positon as London.

In 2011—that is, five years ago already—a studyby Professor Ludi Simpson, Professor of Population Studies at ManchesterUniversity, revealed that the city of Birmingham is set to become minority white even if there is no further immigration.


In a report on the declining number of white British schoolchildren in Birmingham, Professor Simpson said that “curbs on immigration will not prevent Birmingham having a white minority population in the future.”

As reported in the Birmingham Mail in 2011, the number of children from “white families is already falling in the Second City, with more than half of under 16s now being from black, Asian, and other ethnic communities.”

“There has been greater diversity of ethnic origins in Britain and Birmingham for each of the past five decades and longer,” he said. “That is unlikely to change.”

“Future immigration is not the reason for this change,” Professor Simpson pointed out—meaning that natural reproduction rates of already existing Third World immigrants was more than enough to swamp the city.

Once again, this is happening completely irrelevant of EU membership.

Birmingham’s school-age population mirrors that of London

According to a 2013 report issued by theBirmingham Community Safety Partnership (BCSP), just 31 percent of children in that city’s schools were classified as white.

The report also revealed that children spoke a total of 108 languages at home, including Urdu, Punjabi, Bengali, Somali, and others.


Manchester’s Racial Demographic Swing Near

According to the 2011 ONS Census for the city of Manchester, what it called “Ethnic Minority Groups (not White),” accounted for 33.4 percent of the population in that metropolis.
  
However, that overall figure hides the reality of the age spread of the Third World immigrant population.

According to the “Ethnic groups in Manchester by age and sex (residents) Census 2011” (Table 2, Manchester CityCouncil Public Intelligence Population Publications, report “A17 2011 EthnicGroups by broad age and sex”), Third World immigrants dominate the under-18 age group.


According to the ONS figures—which, it bears repeating once again, are already five years out of date—in the age group 0–4 years, “Ethnic Minority Groups (not White)” made up 52.4 percent of the total.

In the age group 5–9, “Ethnic Minority Groups (not White)” made up 52 percent of the total.

In the age group 10–15, “Ethnic Minority Groups (not White)” made up 45.6 percent of the total, and in the age group 16–17, they made up 42.6 percent of the total.

The effect of this upon Manchester’s immediate demographic future—that is, within the next five years—is obvious. The city—the third largest in Britain after London and Birmingham—will be majority nonwhite within ten years.

The “Net Immigration” Trick

Professor Coleman’s 2012 report was based on the then current “net rates of immigration,” which had been running at more than 200,000 a year.
The use of the words “net immigration” is, however, an old establishment political party trick to deceive the public about the true extent of Third World immigration into Britain.

The con works this way: they add up the total number of immigrants arriving in Britain, and then deduct from that number the total number of people leaving the country—and the difference is called “net immigration.”

In this way, 200,000 low-IQ sub-Saharan Africans coming into Britain are put on the same level as say, 50,000 white Britons retiring to Spain, or otherwise emigrating—and in this way, they justify the “stabilization” of the UK’s population, as if there has not really been any significant change at all.

The Conservative Party is the prime proponent of this “net migration” confidence trick—which they call “balanced migration.”

Even though the Conservative Party’s election manifesto regularly claims that they will bring “balanced migration levels” to the UK, of course they have never done anything of the sort, and Third World migration into Britain continues to be as high—if not higher—as it was during the Labour Party’s years in power.

UKIP Fails to Address the Real Issue

Even the UK Independence Party (UKIP), which is currently the favored “alternative” party to the Conservative and Labour parties, often touts this “balanced migration” lie.

In its 2015 election manifesto, the party specifically said that “UKIP has no intention of ‘pulling up the drawbridge’ to Britain, as has been suggested. We simply want to control who walks over it, like nearly 200 other countries worldwide.”


It is clear that not even UKIP dares to address the real issue—namely that there are already so many Third World immigrants and their descendants present in Britain, that even if the drawbridge had to be pulled up,” it would make no difference to the fact that by 2060, white British people are going to be a minority in the UK.

Does EU Membership Matter?

The conclusion of this demographic overview is unpalatable to many on the “right” who have campaigned so vigorously for the “no” vote in the June 23 UK referendum.

This conclusion is that membership of the EU is going to make no difference to the only real issue facing Britain: its survival as a First World, majority European, nation.

While there might—or might not, depending on whose statistics one wants to believe—be some economic advantage to leaving the EU—that doesn’t really matter.

EU membership will be irrelevant to the Kingdom of Britainistan in 2060, which will resemble a cross between Nigeria and Saudi Arabia.

The only way that this future can be averted is through a social and political revolution to halt and reverse Third World demographic replacement.

Given current political circumstances in Britain, what are the chances of such a political and social revolution?

The answer to that, unfortunately, is clear.

Wise people should now be thinking of alternatives.