>
THE POPULATION JIHAD
Whilst the threat of Islamist terrorism takes up much of the Western world's attention, dialogue, security preparedness and fears the true threat of Islam comes from a mass of people whose polygamous life style is conducive to massive overpopulation. While our Western leaders ponder what newer bigger and better safety measures can be installed - placing CC cameras in every possible location to document our mundane daily activities and pull bottles of "threatening" hand creme from our airport luggage - these same leaders stand with our borders wide open and encourage the full scale muslim colonization of our countries.
Indeed, the greatest threat, as the below article states, is the consistent drum beat of muslim immigration into the Western countries aided and abeted by our politicians and leaders lefty policies multiculturalism of family reunification. At no other time in history has it been easier and more comforatable for muslims to enter the UK and immediately partake of the UK taxpayer paid social benefits. In fact, multiculturalism has actually place muslims in a position of receiving preferential treatment over and above the indigenous British. (a few examples here , here , here ) The British, and other Western countries, are expected to bow down and worship at the altar of multiculturalism all whilst sacrificing British/Western culture and traditions at this same altar. Hand in hand with multiculturalism came the perpetually overused club of racism - thus anyone who speaks out against muslim over-immigration is immediately silenced and pilloried with accusations of being "racist". It's become un-politically correct to speak about the muslim colonisation happening right under our "stiff upper lips".
Finally an author has the courage to speak and write what is actually occurring - along with warnings that such overpopulation by the muslims will most definitely lead to the Isalmisation of Europe/West. Too many Westerners bought into the "zero population growth" particularly popular back in the 1970s. Westerners were made to feel it was our duty to lessen the death march of overpopulation - to do our part for the world. Yes - the majority of us did -- and now the consequences are that other regions, particularly the Middle East, continued to overpopulate whilst the Western world population stagnated or dwindled. Now the same lefty leaders that guilted us into having smaller families tell us that we "need" rampant immigration to survive. Unfortunately, it is clear that our traditions and cultures will NOT survive.
The looming question is whether or not it is the obligation of the West to absorb the world's poor - can we afford to do so both culturally and economically?
The even more ominous stark reality is it appears we no longer have a choice.
entire article - emphasis mine
The population explosion on Europe’s doorstep
Most of us who remember Ehrlich’s book have long since dismissed it for stirring hysteria. Yet in some respects he was almost right: he predicted that world population would double in 35 years, and in 40 years it has indeed almost doubled – from 3.5 billion to 6.7 billion in 2007. So why does Prince Philip’s invocation of “overpopulation” seem so anachronistic, so unfashionable?
Because the term no longer applies to the West. In the 1960s the threat of “overpopulation” applied to virtually every country in the world, all of whose populations were expanding – if at different rates. From 1971, however, western fertility plummeted. Europe has been underreproducing for decades: its total fertility rate (TFR) – the average number of children a woman bears in her lifetime – is 1.5, well below the 2.1 required to replace the people already here.
Meanwhile, with a current TFR of 2.9 , the population of poorer nations keeps rising. Virtually all of the 2.5 billion extra people on our guest list will arrive in the Third World (aka “undeveloped”, “underdeveloped” or “developing” nations, or recently “the south” – when people keep shifting their terminology, be sure that there’s something politically scary in the vicinity).
Now viewed as a judgmental word that applies exclusively to nonwestern countries, “overpopulation” has become racially, religiously and ethnically sticky, and thus totally uncool. For decades no one in the population field has touched the word “overpopulation” with a bargepole.
It’s time to come clean: I am a demography junkie. My perverse obsession began when I was 16, when I spent a full semester of high school researching population growth. I revisited the fascination in my fourth novel, Game Control. In what I hope is a wicked satire, a demographic zealot plans to nip runaway population growth in the bud by murdering two billion people overnight. The premise may sound outlandish but the nonfiction underpinnings of the text were carefully researched. Furthermore, the graph of human population through the ages – meandering virtually horizontal at the bottom of the page for hundreds of thousands of years and then spiking almost vertically over the past century like a polygraph needle when the subject tells a whopper – illustrates that, in population biology, fact itself is more outlandish than anything I might make up.
Why have I been entranced by population, of all things? I have my theories. I grew up in a religious, left-leaning American household that tyrannised my childhood with guilt. Before we ate, we had to pray for hungry Chinese peasants, and then we had to clean our plates for the starving Armenians (long dead, but no one told me). Everything nice that we had we were supposed to feel bad about; and I was required to give 10 cents of my 25c weekly allowance (that’s about 12p) to charity. So I think I resented all these poor people for whom I was supposed to feel sorry. They were a burden. Then I discovered that there were going to be more and more of them. Just because they had large families, I was going to have to feel even worse and give away more of my allowance.
In adulthood I’ve come to appreciate how many other problems are fuelled by population growth, from environmental degradation to disease. All roads lead to demography. Besides, there’s nothing boring about statistics if you have an imagination and some sense of what they mean.
My interest was reignited in 2003 by an article in Population and Development Review. The journal’s editor, Paul Demeny, compared the population projections for Yemen – a Muslim country about the size of France – and Russia, which is 30 times bigger. In 1950 Russia had 103m people, Yemen 4.3m – meaning there were 24 Russians for every Yemeni. By 2000 Russia had 145m people, and Yemen 17.5m – that’s about eight Russians for every Yemeni. Proportionally, a few more Yemenis; no big deal.
Alas, Russian men drink too much. Their life expectancy is 60. Worse, Russian women are not having many babies: by 2000 Russia’s total fertility rate was a miserable 1.2. Demeny revealed that even though UN figures assumed Russian fertility would rise by 50% – awfully optimistic – the country’s population in 2050 was still expected to contract back to 1950 levels of about 104m. Meanwhile, although UN figures also assumed that fertility in Yemen would fall by half, Yemen’s population in 2050 was expected to rise to 102m.
That’s right: in a little more than 40 years, the population of Russia could be met and overtaken by that of Yemen. Which has only 3% arable land and is mostly desert.
If Russia versus Yemen is an extreme case, the broader picture is equally sobering. Demeny went on to compare the populations of 25 European nations to the 25 nations in what he called Europe’s “southern hinterland”: the Asian and north African countries surrounding this continent. Check out the UN population projections in 2000 (see panel).
Honey, I shrunk the continent: Europe is contracting. On the other hand, over the course of only 100 years north Africa, western Asia and the Middle East are set to multiply eightfold. Throw into the mix the fact that all those countries are Muslim, and politically you have one sizzling hot potato.
Why should any of this matter to us? Well, let’s count the ways:
Immigration Legal or illegal, we haven’t seen anything yet. If we add in all of Africa – from which significant numbers emigrate to Europe – we can expect by 2050 to have 2.7 billion relatively poor, heavily unemployed and perhaps increasingly desperate people on Europe’s doorstep.
Since most of them cannot afford a ticket on American Airlines, they will migrate to wealthy countries nearby to which they can swim, walk or ride by stowing away on a lorry. And never mind protecting European borders or tightening the laws. Desperate people are resourceful people; just because you’re poor doesn’t mean you’re not smart.
Food and fuel pricesThe recent spikes in both have admittedly been fed by a variety of factors, but one of them is demand. That demand will keep rising with increased population, and so will prices.
Climate change The addition of three billion people, many of whom may aspire to a middle-class western lifestyle, will turn feeble carbon-reduction efforts – recycling yoghurt pots, biking to work – into a joke. If you care about green issues, ipso facto you should care about population.
Political instability and reduced social cohesion Inexorably high immigration rates from neighbouring Muslim countries are likely to transform the ethnic and religious composition of this continent. Happily, it may soon be possible to get an excellent falafel on any street corner in Europe. But if younger generations in countries such as Egypt continue to become more fundamentalist and more politically radicalised than their parents, terrorism could rise.
WaterThere isn’t enough of it. In his level-headed book How Many People Can the Earth Support?, Professor Joel Cohen identifies water as the ultimate limiting factor on human population. Even if it were evenly distributed throughout the world – which it is not – the human race would be expected to run out of fresh water when the global population reached about nine billion – a figure we are now set substantially to exceed.
Power Europe initially rose to political and military dominance in tandem with a rising population. With a dropping population, its influence will probably wane.
Is this little more than racist, xenophobic claptrap? I don’t think so. Current population levels are facts. Population projections are mathematical extrapolations from facts. Certainly, you can fiddle with the assumptions underlying the projections and come up with wildly different numbers, and historically the accuracy of demographic prediction has been pretty dismal. (Case in point: only four years after Demeny published his comparison of Yemen and Russia, the UN nearly halved its projected 2050 population for Yemen from 102m to 58m. Yet, Demeny tells me, “there are many more Yemens”: the population of Egypt will exceed Russia’s well before 2050.)
Numbers do not have prejudices. Europe is dwindling. Its immediate Muslim neighbours are still having large families, and their populations are continuing to grow. Make of that what you will. It is not BNP propaganda; it’s just the way things are.
The Duke of Edinburgh may not have employed the trendiest vocabulary but he’s not suffering from undiagnosed dementia. Whatever you call it, the threat of overpopulation is back and here to stay – because it never really went away. This could be a good time to start learning Arabic.
The PostBirthday World by Lionel Shriver is published by HarperCollins
It is the statistic that dare not speak its name, though eventually it must. It has huge ramifications for the civil and political life of this country, the health of the equity markets and, most immediately, the residential property market. So don't forget you read it here first: the population of the UK is presently somewhere between 77 and 80 million.
The 2001 census, already hopelessly out of date and easy to avoid for those who find filling in forms a trifle inelegant, numbered us at a little under 59 million. But as statistics go, that one's most definitely a damned lie.
My sources for the above statement are good, but scared of admitting the truth for fear of incurring the wrath of Whitehall. It's like the best way of monitoring illegal drug consumption: forget the pious statements from ministers - the foolproof method is to sample our water and the effluent in it. That's easily the best way of monitoring what the nation has been consuming.
Consumption - that's the thing. Based on what we eat, one big supermarket chain reckons there are 80 million people living in the UK. The demand for food is a reliable indicator; as Sir Richard Branson says, you can have all the money in the world but you can only eat onelunch and one dinner.
The supermarket in question was privately lobbying the Competition Commission to let it grow its market share. The argu- ment, reasonably enough, was that the market was far bigger than the regulator realised, so expanding the network was fair.
I have a second, respectable, source. A major, non-commercial agricultural institution reckons there are 77 million of us in the UK. Again, its reckoning is based on what we eat.
That faint background noise you're hearing as you read this is the sound of everyone slithering off the record. Why? In political terms, standing behind these figures would be to toss a hand grenade into a vat of gasoline. People would be hounded out of a job for scaremongering.
The Office for National Statistics' figures, published last week, predict a population of 75 million by 2051. It's an honest estimate but horribly wide of the mark because number counting doesn't work effectively. If you want to know how many there are of us, ask a food firm.
If the true numbers were revealed, the Little Englanders and xenophobes would come out in force about the evils of immigration. But that's what made America great in the 19th century, and it's a driving force of our economy right now. It's also anti- inflationary.
David Buik, a money manager with broker BGC Partners, was talking of.....
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20071028/ai_n21077082
AND STILL THEY COME IN HOARDS 68% OF IMMIGRANTS ARE FROM OUTSIDE THE EU..migration watch.
THE DUKE OF EDINBURGH IS A MEMBER OF THE CLUB OF ROME.
DE-POPULATION IS THEIR GOAL AND FOOD CONTROL.
Reply to this
This is a such an important article that I have taken the liberty of posting it on http://britishnationalism.org/forum/showthread.php?p=4434&posted=1#post4434
I hope you dont mind
Reply to this
Which is why there was a brief announcement is the last month that the government (so called) will not hold a census in 2011. The first time it has not done so since the started them in about 1840.
They said with all the information available it is unnecessary. They will not of course collect this information and issue it in census format. I wonder why?
Reply to this
hopefully this inept bunch of marxist lawyers, champagne socialists and class warriors will be a horrible memory by 2011
Reply to this
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/1805_bent_copper.shtml
WALKING his beat, PC Zeeshaan Chaudry looks every inch the respectable bobby.
But out of uniform the cop regarded by his superiors as a role model to youngsters in his community becomes a VILLAIN for hire.
We can reveal how PC918 Chaudry uses his job to offer a shameful array of criminal services to the underworld from FAKE PASSPORTS and BOGUS DRIVING LICENCES to DRUGS robbed from dealers.
And the devout Pakistani Muslim is even prepared to help local gangsters frame their rivals by planting TERRORIST DEVICES on them.
Acting on a tip-off, we sent undercover men posing as criminals to see what Chaudry, 23, could do for them.
The bent PC arranged to meet them outside a mosque after he had been to prayers.
First our men told him they needed a fake passport, driving licence and police badge for someone they wanted to smuggle into the country.
Chaudry smiled and said: "Yeah, yeah. I have got someone who can do it. He can do passports, driving licences, wage slips, birth certificates... anything. If you want to get someone over here we'll get him a student visa.
"Police badges? You get them made in Pakistan. If you let me know I'll get one made. I'll need a photo though."
Then the greedy cop gave us his price...£1,000. "Tell him it is going to cost a grand. I'll give you 500 and I keep 500. We'll do it like that."
Chaudry clearly regarded this as only small-time villainy and was eager to talk about one of his biggest scams—robbing drug dealers.
Raid
The cop bragged how he had access to information about police raids on drug dens. He wanted our undercover men to help him storm the dens the day before the raid and steal the drugs and cash.
Speaking quietly and looking around furtively, Chaudry said: "I know exactly when it's going to happen. I know the process at the beginning. We can make 20 grand each.
"When the transaction is taking place, me and you are going to roll up and take the chips. And that's it.
"Let me know if you are interested. Obviously you have got the balls. If you have a few people who are interested, we are all going to get a little drink out of it."
Chaudry also has a sideline dealing drugs himself. He told our men he could supply them with skunk cannabis. He said: "Skunk? How much do you need? Take this number down."
And he even boasted he could get drugs to prisoners at his police station in Limehouse, east London. "I can get stuff in the cells if it is puff, if they put it in the cigarettes, yeah," he said.
By now, Chaudry was relaxed enough to explain the most disturbing trick in his arsenal of corruption —framing gangsters as TERRORISTS then arresting them.
After our men explained they had a bitter rival they wanted rid of, Chaudry laughed and said: "No one can f*** around with you now man. I'll sort him out. Set him up."
"Get a few batteries, put wires around them, strip the wires to make it look like he is making bomb
Reply to this
THE OPINIONATOR
I pointed out to Gandalf and AjUK that it is good to limit the article on the main page to about 5 lines, followed by MORE...and the rest in the comments section.
This allows the main page threads to continue for much longer, and active dscussions can take place.
As for the demographic Jihad, I have been writing about this on LGF since 9/11, well nigh 7 years. It is one of the reasons that "moderate" Muslims are far more of a threat then the Jihadis.
Only one humane way - slow and steady removal of Muslims from Europe and the West.
Reply to this
"Only one humane way - slow and steady removal of Muslims from Europe and the west"
I pointed out to one politician that this should be perfectly possible. After all starting in 1916 without the help of computers they rounded up 1 million + British men and shipped them off to France and all points east. Many of them are still there.
Reply to this
I prefer quick & instant over slow and steady.
Reply to this
me too
1,000,000 Devided by 300 (jumbo load) is a flipping lot of jumbos.
3333 to be exact.
Reply to this
The human population has already increased beyond sustainability.
We in the civilised countries have reduced our rate of population increase in order to provide higher living standards for our children and our elderly, and of course ourselves.
The 'developing' people have not.
They continue to fornicate irresponsibly and demand that The West provide them with Aid.
This is pure stupidity on their part.
One quarter of the world's population (us) can't possibly continue to provide for the other three quarters of the world's population.
It just can't be done.
The 'developing' people will just have to start working their own lands to provide food for themselves and dramatically cut the number of children they have per family.
The other obvious, and most probably unavoidable, option is that we simply bomb them until them their populations are so reduced that they will need another hundred years to catch up to where they were fifty years ago.
Sorry, all you nice people out there: I stopped donating any money, goods, time or effort to 'poor impoverished people from backward lands well before that twit Bob Geldorf sang "Do they know it's Christmas time?"
No, Bobby dear. They're not Christians.
I don't feed, clothe, educate or house my enemies.
Reply to this