UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 18^th, 2021 at 10:15pm:


Since when has that been my idea?

And that's already happened but you've never seen me support it.

Don't make up more BS than necessary.

Ayn Marx wrote on Oct 19^th, 2021 at 6:41am:



I'm living in the 1950s when a man could go to work
and earn enough money to support his wife and about 4 children -
pay off a house with a white picket fence.

Those were the good old days.

while the overall fertility rate in England and Wales is going down, the fertility rate of non-UK mothers is going up:

While fertility rates have continually fallen, the actual population of Britain has continued to increase, with mass migration accounting for 'about 90 per cent of population growth between 2017 and 2019.'

Percentage of live births to non-UK-born mothers, 2020

Newcastle 31.8 per cent;

Birmingham 43.6 per cent;

Coventry 46.3 per cent;

Manchester 51.3 per cent;

Oxford 51.6 per cent;

Leicester 56.4 per cent;

Cambridge 58.2 per cent;

Slough [next door to Windsor Castle] 64.8 per cent;

Barking and Dagenham 68.2 per cent;

Kensington and Chelsea 69.9 per cent;

Ealing [as in those quintessentially English 1950s "Ealing comedies"] 70.9 per cent;

Westminster [as in "the Westminster system"] 72.8 per cent;

Newham 73.8 per cent;

Harrow [where Winston Churchill went to school] 74.8 per cent;

Brent 75.8 per cent.

Where are all these "non-UK" mothers born? Don't worry, they're not all Somali. The Number One country of origin is Pakistan - legacy of empire and all that, so a lot of vibrant diverse first-cousin marriage in West Yorkshire.

The Number Two country of origin is Romania. Not all Romanian mothers come here voluntarily:

Around three quarters of women trafficked to the UK come from Romania and the majority are sold into the sex trade.

On the other hand, Bangladesh is down to Number Five and Somalia down to Number Seven.

Non-UK mothers accounted for 29.3 per cent of all births in England and Wales - which means the fertility rate of ethnic Anglo-Celts is not 1.58 but something closer to 1.3 births per woman, which is what demographers call lowest-low fertility from which no society known to human history has ever recovered.

The rate of immigration into Britain, Canada and America is beyond the powers of "assimilation", even if our societies were minded to assimilate, rather than denigrating the host culture by introducing (under a government of pseudo-conservative wankers) such novel concepts as the racism of mathematics. But, even without such over-egging of the pudding, on UK and other western rates of immigration, the "host community" does not assimilate the incomers, but vice-versa, as is happening in all the English cities listed above.

In Mitteleuropa, governments are energetically pro-family and opposed to mass unskilled immigration, noting crudely that the easiest way not to have a lot of Muslim terrorist stabbings is not to have a lot of Muslims. Even in France, Eric Zemmour, who may well be in next year's presidential run-off against Macron, speaks of a "demographic tsunami" - and God bless him for doing so, because it is not seemly for great nations to exit the stage of history without at least acknowledging the truth.
https://www.steynonline.com/11790/the-future-is-showing-up

Gnads wrote on Oct 19^th, 2021 at 9:07am:


Migrants typically migrate to new areas which have people that share a common culture. It takes a bit of courage and preparation for them to move to a region where they are an outsider to just about everyone, no matter how tolerant are the locals.

Years ago, we had a situation up here where the people from NSW were moving in to town. Our population grew to near 90,000. Then the mining boom finished and people moved on from there. The amount of traffic in the area was quite amazing for a local town. Businesses boomed.

Meanwhile, places like Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth are the drop off points for migrants setting up a new life. They do not get off the plane and then move to regional centres and towns to expand the population there.

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 21^st, 2021 at 3:06pm:


I don't think you'd be able to reason as to what I implied.

Some people have a lot of children because they can afford to .... some do when they cannot & the children suffer.

Certain 3rd world immigrants do it because they want to dominate society to their ideology & because their women are oppressed into accepting they are a mans chattels & that's what they have to do.

What category do you fall into? 

I'd hazard a guess at what I highlighted.

So they all took after their mothers? 

Gnads wrote on Oct 21^st, 2021 at 6:48pm:


I would hope so for some of them.