Thursday, January 06, 2011

The Numbers Game, Part One

Luton crowd #2

A frequent topic of discussion in Counterjihad circles concerns the alarming demographics of the Western democracies. Due to mass immigration from the Third World, and a much higher birth rate among the new arrivals than the original population, the native peoples of the West are in decline relative to those who are on the verge of supplanting them.

These facts are well known to demographers, but reliable statistics about how rapidly this transformation is occurring are comparatively hard to find. When it comes to certain sensitive metrics, most governments decline to compile statistics by ethnic group, and sometimes even forbid such data-gathering by law as a “racist” activity. New births are typically catalogued merely by the citizenship of the parents, rather than by ethnic origin, so that the decline in the white birth rate is masked by the overall totals, which include a large number of births to immigrant citizens or their descendants.

To these difficulties can be added the fact that much immigration, particularly of the poorest and least educated people, is illegal and undocumented. The new arrivals sneak into the country of their choice, disappear into the ghettos of their ethnic fellows, work in the black economy, and often purchase false identity documents in order to obtain state benefits. As a result, a reliable statistical snapshot of the most sensitive demographic trends is difficult to come by.

I recently read several articles about the explosion of Muslim immigration into the United Kingdom, and it started me thinking about what might be involved in evaluating the population data and projecting it into the future.

I chose Britain for my analysis for two reasons — (1) quite a bit of data is available, and (2) it’s in English. Data are also available for the United States, but the USA is more complicated to evaluate, since the greatest influx is from Mexico rather than Muslim countries. Illiterate and chauvinistic Mexicans are damaging to our nation, but the harm they cause will not become so evident or so severe until long after the Muslim colonization of Europe.

My goal is not to produce absolutely accurate demographic figures, nor to predict exactly what will happen in the decades ahead. My intention is rather to design a reasonable set of projections of what the future may hold, based on a certain set of assumptions. I’ve constructed scenarios using three sets of parameters — labeled somewhat arbitrarily as “optimistic”, “neutral”, and “pessimistic” — and followed an algorithm to discover where they lead.

Assumptions

The basis for my calculations includes certain assumptions about the populations involved. These presuppositions do not present a great degree of accuracy, but merely act as approximations for the purpose of modeling the trends.

First of all, I assume that Muslims and natives in Britain have different age distributions. I used the United States for a general age-population breakdown, based on a variety of sources, because it was easier to find the data. I chose a reasonably recent (2000) spread of age groups for the demographic base of natives, and a breakdown taken from 1880 for the Muslim immigrants. The latter seemed appropriate, because America was teeming with immigrants in the 1880s, with the demographic balance tipped heavily towards children and young adults. This seems a suitable template to use for today’s new arrivals in Britain.

A summary of the age distributions is given in the table below:
  Under 5 5-19 20-44 45-64 65 and over
1880 13.8% 34.3% 35.9% 12.6% 3.4%
2000 6.8% 20.7% 35.4% 24.6% 12.4%

The model I use begins with the year 2010. According to various sources, the current population of the UK is estimated at 62 million, of which approximately 2.2 million are Muslims. Ignoring the fact that the non-Muslim population includes Hindus, Sikhs, Jamaicans, Eastern Europeans, and other non-Muslim immigrants and their descendants, I will refer to the non-Muslim residents as “natives” for the sake of simplicity. I rounded off the number of natives to 60 million when initializing the model for the year 2010.

The most optimistic scenario assumes that the official estimate of the Muslim population in the UK — 2.2 million — is accurate. However, numerous immigrants arrive illegally in Britain every year, so the actual number may be higher. Therefore the other two scenarios assume a larger Muslim population in 2010.

Annual changes in population are derived from a combination of births, deaths, and net migration.

The number of births to existing residents depends on the average fertility rate for each woman and the total number of childbearing-age females. Unfortunately, fertility rates for distinct ethnic groups are notoriously hard to determine, given that most countries only make available the numbers born to citizens and non-citizens. Since many immigrants and their descendants are now citizens, the analyst is reduced to guessing the respective fertility rates for Muslims and natives.

The latest figures for Britain show a fertility rate of about 1.8 children per woman. Knowing the demographics of Pakistan (the source of most Muslim immigrants), the likely breakdown may be 4 to 5 per Muslim women versus 1.6 to 1.7 per native woman. Anecdotal evidence seems to confirm these approximations, so the model uses several different guesses based on them to project the three scenarios.

Death rates are somewhat easier to estimate. Life expectancy is now about 77 years in the West, and we can assume that those immigrants who become established here avail themselves of the generous welfare benefits and advanced medical care on offer, and thus enjoy a longevity comparable to that of the natives. There will be some variations — for example, Muslim immigrants have a higher incidence of serious congenital disorders, and are also more prone to violence, so this may increase the death rate in certain age groups.

On the other hand, the natives probably drink more heavily and may be more prone to drug addiction, so trends in the opposite direction could also be at work. All in all, however, 77 seems a suitable life expectancy, and will be used in the model.

This means that 1/77 of the population dies each year, on average. However, the death rate obviously varies across age groups, and I have used an actuarial model that contains a modest spike in the lowest ages to represent infant mortality, and then is more or less flat until after age 45, when it rises to its maximum at 77. Once again, this is by no means accurate, but will serve to produce an instructive model.

Other annual changes to the population come from immigration and emigration. According to the latest estimates, more than 600,000 immigrants enter the UK every year. Figures for emigration vary, but seem to indicate that about 180,000 to 200,000 British citizens leave the country permanently every year. Both of these rates have been increasing over the past decade.

The big question here is how many of the immigrants are Muslims, and how many of the emigrant citizens are natives. One would assume that a large portion of the immigrants are Muslims: 50% seems a reasonable approximation. And it seems likely that most of the emigrants would be native Britons, escaping the conditions created in part by the massive influx of immigrants.

My scenarios employ a fairly cautious range of parameters for migration: between 250,000 and 350,000 Muslim immigrants every year, and 100,000 to 200,000 annual native emigrants.

Utilizing the above assumptions, I have devised three scenarios employing the following parameters to model future trends:

 NativesMuslims
ScenarioPop. Fert. MigratePop. Fert. Migrate
Optimistic60 mln 1.9 -100k2.2 mln 3.5 250k
Neutral60 mln 1.6 -150k2.6 mln 4.5 300k
Pessimistic60 mln 1.3 -200k3.0 mln 5.5 350k

The “pessimistic” scenario can get even more pessimistic: the fertility rate among white Britons could trend more towards an Italian or Japanese scenario, and drop to 1.2 or 1.1. Immigration has been increasing every year, as has emigration of the natives — both sets of numbers could increase further than I have assumed in any of the scenarios.

Even so, this is a good set of assumptions for a beginner’s analysis.

Two additional assumptions:

1. Women have a 28-year “breeding shelf-life”, which runs from ages 15 to 42. Within this range, a woman is considered equally likely to give birth, based on the assumed aggregate fertility rate.

This model obviously not completely accurate, since women between 20 and 30 are more likely to give birth than younger or older women, and a fair number of births are to women outside the given age range. However, the method is close enough to be useful in calculating the birth rate and providing the number of “breeders”.
 
2. Migrants (both immigrants and emigrants) are distributed according to the age-proportions of the existing population.

This, too, is less than completely accurate, since younger people are more likely to migrate than the elderly. But it will serve our purposes for statistical modeling.

Now comes the algorithm for calculating the demographic changes.

Methodology

I am no demographer, and my skill with statistical techniques has lain unused for forty years. As a result, the method described below relies simply on common sense and a reasonable competence in computer programming.

Using the assumptions about the age distribution for the ethnic groups as described above, the starting population for each run of the model is allocated to an array with 77 elements, one for each year of the age groups. Like everything else in the model, this is a compromise, since many people live well beyond the average life expectancy. However, to make the programming easier, I simply kill everyone off on their 78th birthday and distribute the rest of the deaths through the population array according to the actuarial schema.

At the beginning of each year, the program calculates the number of “breeders” using the assumptions outlined above, taking half of the number in each appropriate age group to be the number of women. The number of births is calculated based on these numbers.

At that point each of array elements 2 through 77 is pulled from the previous element, after being adjusted for deaths and migration, thus making everyone a year older. The number of births is added to element 1 in the population array, and then the process starts over at the beginning of the following year.

To populate the tables of results, at the end of each year two additional numbers are calculated:

1. Voters: The total of the numbers in array elements 18 and above. This is significant for evaluation of future electoral trends.
2. Dangerous: This is the total of young men between 15 and 30. It is calculated by adding up the appropriate array elements and dividing by two. The assumption is that these young men are more likely to be “warriors”. Most street fighters and terrorists will be in this age group. Hence they are labeled dangerous.

Before running the “real” data through the model, I tested it with a fertility rate of 2.1 — widely considered the “replacement rate” for modern populations — and a migration rate of zero. I ran it for five hundred years, and the population fluctuated through several cycles for a century or so before settling into a sine wave around the baseline of the original population. So, in that sense, the model works.

The results for the three scenarios are below, in tabular form. Each scenario is played out until 2050, with the numbers displayed every five years. First comes the optimistic scenario, with the totals for natives and Muslims, then the neutral, then the pessimistic. All population numbers are given in thousands:

Scenario: OptimisticGroup: Natives
Year Population Breeders Voters Dangerous
2010 60,000 12,294 43,794 6,720
2015 57,446 12,018 41,823 6,542
2020 55,763 11,745 40,630 6,458
2025 54,449 11,809 39,992 6,576
2030 53,291 11,498 39,453 6,416
2035 52,304 11,194 38,713 6,252
2040 51,363 10,968 38,018 5,800
2045 50,337 10,747 37,263 5,710
2050 49,204 10,427 36,423 5,614

Scenario: OptimisticGroup: Muslims
Year Population Breeders Voters Dangerous
2010 2,200 505 1,366 343
2015 3,722 848 2,293 577
2020 5,405 1,214 3,308 848
2025 7,261 1,672 4,445 1,133
2030 9,309 2,141 5,707 1,416
2035 11,574 2,659 7,054 1,738
2040 14,065 3,200 8,537 2,051
2045 16,784 3,805 10,168 2,441
2050 19,751 4,475 11,951 2,876


Scenario: NeutralGroup: Natives
Year Population Breeders Voters Dangerous
2010 60,000 12,294 43,757 6,714
2015 56,563 11,967 41,605 6,509
2020 54,035 11,644 40,237 6,397
2025 51,893 11,595 39,426 6,364
2030 49,875 10,931 38,349 5,874
2035 47,972 10,285 36,845 5,392
2040 46,060 9,722 35,407 4,682
2045 44,004 9,141 33,899 4,544
2050 41,776 8,434 32,253 4,362

Scenario: NeutralGroup: Muslims
Year Population Breeders Voters Dangerous
2010 2,600 597 1,617 406
2015 4,556 1,008 2,726 686
2020 6,774 1,446 3,941 1,010
2025 9,283 2,004 5,303 1,373
2030 12,142 2,636 6,881 1,790
2035 15,424 3,362 8,662 2,289
2040 19,176 4,159 10,679 2,813
2045 23,447 5,096 12,970 3,438
2050 28,327 6,192 15,588 4,170

Scenario: PessimisticGroup: Natives
Year Population Breeders Voters Dangerous
2010 60,000 12,294 43,719 6,709
2015 55,681 11,916 41,387 6,475
2020 52,317 11,543 39,843 6,336
2025 49,361 11,382 38,860 6,151
2030 46,519 10,365 37,245 5,334
2035 43,773 9,382 34,983 4,538
2040 41,000 8,488 32,812 3,580
2045 38,061 7,569 30,574 3,417
2050 34,928 6,515 28,179 3,187


Scenario: PessimisticGroup: Muslims
Year Population Breeders Voters Dangerous
2010 3,000 688 1,868 470
2015 5,431 1,168 3,159 795
2020 8,251 1,678 4,574 1,173
2025 11,504 2,339 6,160 1,619
2030 15,319 3,157 8,075 2,195
2035 19,853 4,125 10,344 2,907
2040 25,213 5,226 12,973 3,693
2045 31,532 6,572 16,039 4,618
2050 39,037 8,218 19,679 5,746

To highlight some of the salient points from the above data, I calculated each Muslim population number as a percentage of the total population in each category. Within these I designated a “point of no return” and a “critical point” for three categories: population, voters, and dangerous young men.

Fifty percent is the “point of no return” for any of these categories, the point past which Islamization is guaranteed and cannot be reversed except through foreign intervention. These numbers are highlighted in red.

However, the critical point in each category will be reached long before the fifty percent mark. For the entire population, I took the example of India as a baseline: at thirteen percent, it suffers from relentless jihad attacks, with deadly terrorist incidents occurring nearly every day.

For voters, I set the critical point at ten percent. Since Muslims tend to vote in a bloc, when the number of Muslim voters reaches ten percent, they will be able to swing the result of any election, guaranteeing a dhimmi government, no matter the party. It may be that the current political establishment in Britain has already realized what lies ahead, given that all three of the major parties have abased themselves to the “Islamic community” in recent elections.

For dangerous young men, the critical point is reached at fifteen percent. Once again, Muslims tend to act cohesively as a single group when confronting non-Muslims, who are usually fragmented and prone to factional disputes — Lebanon is a case in point. Muslim youths are more likely to be violent than young white men, so fifteen percent seems a reasonable guess as to when Muslim fighters will control the streets.

Critical points are marked in blue in the numbers below:

Scenario: Optimistic
Year Population Breeders Voters Dangerous
2010 3.5% 3.9% 3.0% 4.9%
2015 6.1% 6.6% 5.2% 8.1%
2020 8.8% 9.4% 7.5% 11.6%
2025 11.8% 12.4% 10.0% 14.7%
2030 14.9% 15.7% 12.6% 18.1%
2035 18.1% 19.2% 15.4% 21.8%
2040 21.5% 22.6% 18.3% 26.1%
2045 25.0% 26.1% 21.4% 29.9%
2050 28.6% 30.0% 24.7% 33.9%

Scenario: Neutral
Year Population Breeders Voters Dangerous
2010 4.2% 4.6% 3.6% 5.7%
2015 7.5% 7.8% 6.1% 9.5%
2020 11.1% 11.0% 8.9% 13.6%
2025 15.2% 14.7% 11.9% 17.7%
2030 19.6% 19.4% 15.2% 23.4%
2035 24.3% 24.6% 19.0% 29.8%
2040 29.4% 30.0% 23.2% 37.5%
2045 34.8% 35.8% 27.7% 43.1%
2050 40.4% 42.3% 32.6% 48.9%

Scenario: Pessimistic
Year Population Breeders Voters Dangerous
2010 4.8% 5.3% 4.1% 6.5%
2015 8.9% 8.9% 7.1% 10.9%
2020 13.6% 12.7% 10.3% 15.6%
2025 18.9% 17.0% 13.7% 20.8%
2030 24.8% 23.3% 17.8% 29.2%
2035 31.2% 30.5% 22.8% 39.0%
2040 38.1% 38.1% 28.3% 50.8%
2045 45.3% 46.5% 34.4% 57.5%
2050 52.8% 55.8% 41.1% 64.3%

You’ll notice that the point of no return doesn’t appear in these figures except in the pessimistic scenario: for the dangerous it arrives in 2040, and for the population as whole in 2050.

However, the critical point arrives surprising early, even in the optimistic scenario — 2025 for voters, and 2030 for dangerous youths and the population at large. In the pessimistic scenario, Britons will face the debilitating effects of Islamization in less than ten years.

Notice that the percentage of Muslim voters rises much more slowly than for the other categories of interest. This is because of the preponderance of older people in the native population — the Baby Boomer pig takes a long time to move through the Islamized python.

For those who find graphs helpful, the same information is expressed below in graphic form, for the pessimistic scenario only. The critical points are marked as blue discs on the relevant data series:

Chart: Population

Chart: Breeders

Chart: Voters

Chart: Dangerous young men

Conclusions

All three scenarios demonstrate that trouble is coming to the UK quite soon, even in the most optimistic scenario. In a generation or less Britain will see the kind of fiscal deterioration, civil unrest, and sectarian violence that one normally associates with countries such as Bosnia and Lebanon.

The fact that the natives will retain their voting majority for another forty years is not enough to prevent catastrophe, unless they begin voting as a bloc, and relatively soon. The main political parties are already thoroughly dhimmified, and this tendency can only be expected to intensify as the Muslim portion of the electorate grows.

The most salient numbers involve the proportion of warrior-age men, and those figures are also the most alarming of all. Control of the streets will not depend on a huge preponderance of violent young thugs, but rather on the much-dismissed “tiny minority” of bloodthirsty zealots.

However, for more than a few years out this model is not an accurate predictor of what is to come. Although it is not, strictly speaking, a linear projection — the algorithm contains feedback loops that prevent linearity — it depends on factors which are assumed not to change: life expectancy, fertility, and migration levels. If one or more of these factors changes, then all bets are off.

I’ll discuss this and more impressionistic ideas in the second part of this essay.

24 comments:

Zenster said...

Outstanding work, as usual, Baron.

The clock is running down with astonishing speed for Britain and Europe. It is more than a little odd that natives in the UK seem unable to take more away from India's experience with its Muslim population. Given that there once were such close colonial ties and such a substantial Hindu immigrant population in Britain, most of whom speak excellent English.

So, it is not as if there is any substantial barrier to communication or lack of other common ground whereby such information could be transmitted. Between the 2001 Parliament attack and the Mumbai atrocity, one would think that there was an abundance of object lessons to draw from.

This is especially the case in that India's perpetual low-level conflict with Pakistan is, again, mirrored quite adequately by the ongoing jihad being waged by Pakistani immigrants in Britain.

Admittedly, the BBC along with government control of media both pose serious impediments to the free flow of information. Still, that does not adequately explain what is a clear lack with respect to exchange of anecdotal information that might otherwise spur greater public awareness of Islamic jihad.

However starry-eyed it might seem, there still remains some difficultly in imagining that the nation which survived Hitler's Blitz will simply roll over and allow a relatively small portion of its population walk all over them.

Jonh Bull has been underestimated numerous other times in history, typically to the dismay of Britain's enemies. Keeping that in mind, the well-constructed graphs and charts in this article all bespeak a bough that will be brought to its snapping point with some very unexpected kinetics to follow therafter.

Woe be to British Muslims should they continue to prematurely press their suit as they do throughout Islam's bloody borders.

Robert said...

The UK needs more Moslems.

http://ajanlo.kapu.hu/pics.php?d=cardiff

Anonymous said...

This demonstrates that white people need to do something entirely different, to win this game. An arms race with babies isn't the right contest for us. Look at the photo: do these people have anything but fertility and street violence? Why try to compete on that level?

It's as if, when white people were colonising America, they had insisted on using bows and arrows against the larger numbers of Indians. The white people had guns and they were politically incorrect enough to use them. Nowadays, everyone, even the right-wingers, won't even think about using our superior technology. The numbers will be meaningless, as soon as white people decide to win, using technology.

And I'm not advocating violence, either. It could be as innocuous as a birth control virus released in certain areas. Technology used against the enemy, not bullying certain groups in our own population.

Road_Hog said...

The latest researched figures put the Muslim population of Britain at a fraction under 2.9m. This means that the it will probably have doubled (in 10 years) when the Census is recorded next year.

So, the pessimistic forecast is probably the closest. One important factor to be aware of is, that our political parties (including right of centre) are pushing for Turkey's entry into the EU.

It that happens, I believe that we'll have 3 million Turks come to Britain. I base that on the following, we had 1.5 million Poles come here over a period of about 6 years, Turkey has twice the population of Poland and less than half the GDP. Our welfare system, where we (legally) allow up to 4 wives (and pay benefits for all of them) will look very attractive.

As for Muslims block voting and not needing a high percentage of voters to achieve election results, it has already started.

Tower Hamlets mayoral election last year was won by an Independent 'hard line' Muslim, beating the three main parties (even though the left wing party had a 'moderate' Muslim standing), but not just beat them, got more votes than all of them combined.

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgsl/701-750/721_election_results.aspx

The mayor of Tower Hamlets controls a budget of £1 billion (that is not a typo).

bewick said...

Actually I read only last week that the Muslim population is already 4.6 to 4.8m.
Pretty well accords with the difference between official and actual figures I found in 1 major City 20 years ago

painlord2k@gmail.com said...

The scenario computed don't take in account the fact that the second end third generation of Muslim will have a lower, much lower fertility, converging, fast, to the fertility of the natives. This is what happened in Denmark, where second generations immigrants have a lower fertility rate than locals.

Then, also, both blocks are considered monolithically. They are not. There is and there will be a degree of out marrying in the Muslim group, and this will reduce the speed of the growth. If a third, or more, of the Muslims marry outside their group, the Muslim blocks will shrink.

This scenario, also, don't count the fact that many Muslims are converting to other religions or simply abandoning Islam. We can expect that these people will move away from the Islamic enclaves as they are able. Second generations will do the same.
We know, in Italy, of many people converted to Christianity that simply don't tell it when they return to visit the relatives in the Old Country. They simply await that old Mommy and Daddy die, then they will not return to the Old Country again.

The current economics show that there is a movement of Turkish (often high earner) from Germany to Turkey because the economy there is better. This will have, if the numbers are large enough, an effect on Turkey also. A political, cultural end social effect.

Then there is the problem of South Mediterranean nations with black immigration in their countries. Immigrants that prefer to stay there than come in Europe.
Could Muslims take over and win without external help and support?
I say no. But 10 or 20 years down the rod, the oil's money will not be there. Iran is near the economic collapse and his demographic profile is worsening fast. Saudi Arabia and the other oil countries are in need of the Western Tech to extract the always denser crude available.

And, like lattè wrote, Europe or the West need only to decide to stop this, whatever be the cost, and they will use technology to do so.

A virus is a way, but it is not a war weapon. We, western, usually use engineering to bring death to the enemy.
Look at Hearthland Robotics and its aim to replace workers at the line. Look at Ar.Drone, then think about a weaponized version with high explosive (50 grs are enough), mass produced, computer controlled.

Street tugs can take over if the power to be are too weak to defend themselves. But they are no match against a small well trained smart force unleashed. It simply need to have its operative parameters tweaked from "win hearth and mind" to "hit hearth and brain".

We have the power to make a desert and call it "Peace". Hope we don't need to do it to have "Peace".

Green Infidel said...

And what of the non-native, non-Muslim Brits, now making-up a sizeable part of Britain's population themselves? Some, like Poles, and "rugger-playing" immigrants in the UK (Australians and South Africans) have an inclination to be "rough and ready", to see things as they are - and can probably be more relied-on to wake-up and smell the coffee of Jihad relatively soon...

Others, like Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Sub-Saharan Africans, Copts and Americans, are in-between: some will know quite well the threat their own community faces, and will want to counter it, while others will have a liberal or "anti-racist" mindset, and will not want to be seen to "offend" Muslims...

Others still, like Chinese, Irish and South Americans, may be largely ambivalent - having come to Britain mainly for the money or, worse, being "anti-Imperialist" and seeing Muslims as their natural alies against Uncle Sam or Britain itself.

And your statistics for the "native breeders" assume that all of the infidel women breeding will be breeding infidels. As the latest cases of Muslims "grooming" British girls in many British cities indicates, this is FAR from what the Muslims have in mind...

But perhaps the most-important, and most-pessimistic factor: how many of any of these groups, or the native Brits themselves, will be aware of the Jihad, before even seeing that countering it is important? How many will, in between watching Big Brother, the Premiership, going to Dubai or reading the da Vinci code, find the time and need to dig deeper than the superficial explanations the MSM presents? Because right now, in their own words, they "will never, ever understand" what drives the street Jihadis...

So, Baron, in my opinion 2020 is too optimistic for the "critical" point. Where I once worked in England, most people expect "things to start happening" at some point during the decade that's just started...

Anonymous said...

It's true that it would be a mistake for us whites to engage in a breeding war with foreign Third Worlders. But at the same time, we do need to stabilize our population so it's not continuing to shrink. More importantly, we need to critically self-evaluate our own civilization and why it is declining, irrespective of the growth of Islam. Even if there were no Muslim immigrants, we'd still be struggling with a declining population and shattered society. Something is wrong with the West, and it has nothing to do with the rise of the Third World. Islam wouldn't even have a foothold if the West wasn't facing a decline in population and didn't feel a need to important foreigners as slave labor.

Baron Bodissey said...

Painlord2k, Green Infidel --

Your criticisms are valid, but you misunderstand the nature of computer modeling.

I could have written thousands of more lines of code and chosen parameters to include other things such as conversion out of Islam, conversion into islam, declining fertility, etc., etc.

But in the end, something would always be left out -- reality is simply too complex. By its very nature a model CANNOT take all possible things into account. It has to stop somewhere.

That's why I explained that these projections are inherently inaccurate. They are simply a useful tool for getting a rough idea of what may happen.

It's just like the global warming models -- except that in my case I acknowledge up front that my models are not accurate, and do not predict a real future. They are simply illustrative.

Green Infidel said...

Baron -

As a computer-modeller myself, I fully agree :)

And your models are quite sophisticated as it goes, certainly moreso than anything in the MSM or even some sociological institutes!

That said, I do think "grooming" girls, and Muslim man-infidel woman relationships in general may have an important role to play. Would like to see some statistics on how much of that is going on...

Last I heard from a friend in London, and read from someone else on a forum, 9 out 10 Polish girls they knew there were going out with Muslims. I can only hope these are extreme abominations...

Road_Hog said...

Plainlord & Greeninfidel,

It is clear that neither of you live in Britain or have a firsthand understanding of the situation here.

There is no lowering of the Muslim birthrate here and we allow Muslims to claim benefits for 4 wives, although 3 of them must come from abroad. There is virtually no inter-marriage and if there is, all the offspring are Muslims and do not consider themselves British.

As someone who is Welsh and is a 'rugger' type and has also been to South Africa & Australia, I can assure you that we don't have that many Southern Hemisphere residents and those that we do have certainly aren't starting to 'rise up', nor will they.

The only people that are currently prepared to stand up and od something, are the English Working Class (plus a handful of Welsh & Scots) and a small amount of the Middle Class.

And no, 9 out of 10 Polish girls are not going out with Muslims. The Poles tend to keep to themselves. Also, in Britain, Muslim men do not go out with non Muslim women. Muslim men do not see non Muslim women as girlfriend material, only as sexual objects to be abused.

Blogger said...

I still think you are falling into the trap of "race" rather than ideology. Islam is an ideology that has the potential to destroy everything the christian west has worked so hard for, for centuries. But who cares if the British have different physical features in 25 years ... just so long as they no longer adhere to the ideology of Islam.

Green Infidel said...

well Road_hog, an aunt of mine had the misfortune to marry a Muslim, move with him back to his country, and subsequently be virtually-imprisoned in his home... with almost nothing to eat.

They met in Sheffield...

A girl I know also got pregnant with a Muslim, who she met in London. Both my aunt and her, as well as me, are Polish. And as soon as Polish girls arrive at Luton, or Dover, Polish guys don't stand a chance... and even the major websites here in Poland have long articles on how Polish girls in England are easy... for English guys. Or for anyone, apart from Poles.

As for those from the Southern Hemisphere - before the Poles came, they served drinks at almost all the bars in my part of London, and were the clear majority in Regent's Park when Australia toured during the '05 Ashes. Granted, this was London. I wouldn't expect to find too many Aussies anywhere outside of it!

Anonymous said...

Blogger, race is not a "trap". The nations of Europe have been ethnically intact for thousands of years, and have a right to preserve their ethnic identity. Science has shown more and more that genes play a bigger role in our lives than we previously assumed, and if you change those genes, or have them become replaced altogether, you're going to have a different nation and culture. Ideology is only icing.

Blogger said...

Wrong. The more, and more widely, that genes are mixed, the better the offspring. Europeans are not a "race", but a mixture of many different groups, including Persians. When you trace ancient languages and legends, this becomes clearer. "Inbreeding" has been known to cause some major genetic disorders. Islam is an ideology, and has NOTHING to do with race! There are just as many "white" muslims in ratio to black, as there are Christians, in the world, which is roughly 50%.

Anonymous said...

Blogger, Europeans are not inbred. Just because they have been homogeneous for thousands of years, does not mean they are all practicing incest. There is a balance between inbreeding and outbreeding, which also has its share of problems. Look up outbreeding depression. Also genetic studies in Iceland shows that the majority of Icelandic people are products of third or fourth cousin marriages, and there is nothing wrong with them.

Europeans are not an admixture of different peoples. Examine the DNA of European ethnic groups and you will find that there is a minimal presence of non-European DNA.

Yes Islam is an ideology, but that is not the fundamental issue. Civilization is not just religion. It's also tied into the people of who built the very civilization. European civilization was built by European people, and only European people can maintain it. This is true for any culture. Observe how Catholic Hispanics of Amerindian extraction maintain many of their Amerindian customs, despite being speakers of an Indo-European language and being Catholic. Likewise observe how many Africans descended from slaves living through Latin America revert to the African culture of their roots.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this. It's perfectly natural for people to identify with the culture of their heritage. And we Westerners need to stop seeing ourselves being part of some transcendent super-culture that all people can and should become apart of. Our culture is not universal. It's made from our ancestors. We carry their heritage. It works for us. It will not work for other people. The sooner we realize this; the sooner we can turn things around.

Anonymous said...

Agent Chameleon: I beg to differ with your idea that the West imports "foreigners as slave labor." Indeed, when foreign Islamic immigrants keep up to four wives plus a Muslim average of eight children per wife on state benefits, then it is the Western working class that is the slave labor paying jizya to Islam.

Green Infidel: You say, "...an aunt of mine had the misfortune to marry a Muslim...." You make it sound like your aunt had an arranged marriage when your aunt presumably had free will to marry whoever she wanted. However, I do agree that Western women are kept as completely innocent as babes in the woods about WHO Muslim men are and WHAT Islam represents. Caveat emptor.

Blogger: You state, "The more, and more widely, that genes are mixed, the better the offspring." Actually, that depends.

For 1,400+ years, Muslims have been hellbent on ruining their segment of the human genome.

Mixing genes would definitely benefit Muslim offspring by tempering highly defective mental and physical characteristics observable in all Western states that measure human IQ and that track and fund handicapped services - whereas mixing genes would NOT benefit either European offspring or the human race at large - who would be absorbing 1,400+ years of genes purposely interbred by 1) unacknowledged family incest due to Sharia Law encouraging rape and molestation, and 2) forced cousin marriages.

Yes, Muslims have been hellbent on ruining the Muslim segment of the human genome for 1,400+ years - and the integration of Muslim genes into the larger body of human genes ONLY benefits Muslims.

Worse yet, any gain to the Muslim genome from the healthier Western genome is strictly temporary when Muslim offspring begin to practice Islam with its aforementioned deleterious effects on the Muslim genome. Rinse and repeat.

Please note that I am NOT talking about either Muslims or Europeans being a race. I am talking about the clearly observable effects of human actions over large (and even short) spans of time on human genomes that may be designated according to human self-identification as being Muslim or European/Western.

In other words, because of 1,400+ years of intentional Islamic interbreeding by Muslims, Muslim offspring generally have lower IQ and/or higher incidence of severe physical handicaps than non-Muslim European/Western offspring.

The truth can be uncomfortable....

Anonymous said...

Agent Chameleon: I beg to differ with your idea that the West imports "foreigners as slave labor." Indeed, when foreign Islamic immigrants keep up to four wives plus a Muslim average of eight children per wife on state benefits, then it is the Western working class that is the slave labor paying jizya to Islam.

Green Infidel: You say, "...an aunt of mine had the misfortune to marry a Muslim...." You make it sound like your aunt had an arranged marriage when your aunt presumably had free will to marry whoever she wanted. However, I do agree that Western women are kept as completely innocent as babes in the woods about WHO Muslim men are and WHAT Islam represents. Caveat emptor.

Blogger: You state, "The more, and more widely, that genes are mixed, the better the offspring." Actually, that depends.

For 1,400+ years, Muslims have been hellbent on ruining their segment of the human genome.

Mixing genes would definitely benefit Muslim offspring by tempering highly defective mental and physical characteristics observable in all Western states that measure human IQ and that track and fund handicapped services - whereas mixing genes would NOT benefit either European offspring or the human race at large - who would be absorbing 1,400+ years of genes purposely interbred by 1) unacknowledged family incest due to Sharia Law encouraging rape and molestation, and 2) forced cousin marriages.

Yes, Muslims have been hellbent on ruining the Muslim segment of the human genome for 1,400+ years - and the integration of Muslim genes into the larger body of human genes ONLY benefits Muslims.

Worse yet, any gain to the Muslim genome from the healthier Western genome is strictly temporary when Muslim offspring begin to practice Islam with its aforementioned deleterious effects on the Muslim genome. Rinse and repeat.

Please note that I am NOT talking about either Muslims or Europeans being a race. I am talking about the clearly observable effects of human actions over large (and even short) spans of time on human genomes that may be designated according to human self-identification as being Muslim or European/Western.

In other words, because of 1,400+ years of intentional Islamic interbreeding by Muslims, Muslim offspring generally have lower IQ and/or higher incidence of severe physical handicaps than non-Muslim European/Western offspring.

The truth can be uncomfortable....

Green Infidel said...

If mixing genes always produces "better offspring" - then surely Brazil should also be the most-advanced country in the world... certainly moreso than the likes of "inbred" Finland?

Or does "better offspring" not necessarily mean better behaviour?

Anonymous said...

Green Infidel: I am confused on your main point, and I am thinking that you are unfamiliar with the problem of extreme consanguinity of Muslims that leads to measurable instances of lower average intelligence and significantly more severe physical handicaps in the Muslim population.

The problem is that Muslims marry their first cousins in imitation of their "perfect" man Mohammed - to the great detriment of the Muslim gene pool over time.

The continual marrying of first cousins for 1,400+ years is very different from non-related or distantly-related citizens of one country marrying citizens from that same country.

Add to that the fact that Sharia Law encourages family rape and molestation by blocking any meaningful identification and prosecution of such crimes. What this means is that girls and women who get pregnant from incest (which is an even closer genetic relationship than the first cousin relationship), such pregnant girls and women are highly motivated to "attribute" those pregnancies to their marriages instead of rape and molestation. Thus, Muslims are even more interbred than simply first cousin marriages.

Muslims are interbred by a high degree of family rape and molestation where fathers, uncles, and brothers get their daughters, nieces, and sisters pregnant with disastrous genetic effects.

Now you may ask, how do I know this? Well, in the recent past of the USA, when family (and other) molestation was kept hush-hush, such molestation was extremely prevalent.

I can only assume that the same or worse degree of family molestation occurs in Muslim countries where the moral law of the land blames the victim for adultery instead of the perpetrator for molestation.

Indeed, my physician sister once spoke to a Muslim doctor in the USA who claimed that EVERY Muslim is raped at some point in their life.

Sad and scary thought!

Green Infidel: Please google Muslim consanguinity and also look up the true scientific definition of interbreeding. There are some really good but shocking articles out there to explain the situation to you.

Anonymous said...

Egghead, immigrants are imported into the West as "cheap labor". That was and continues to remain the justification for mass immigration into both Europe and North America. I don't deny that many immigrants are on welfare, but in America at least, many of these illegal aliens actually do hold jobs and work for cheaper wages, which causes your average American family that doesn't want to mow its own lawn to hire them, thus creating more economic incentive for more immigration.

My fundamental point behind that statement is that for the West, economic prosperity is more important than identity or preservation of one's people and culture.

And of course this is nothing new. Throughout the West's history, Westerners thought that it's a good idea to depend on a foreign underclass to do the dirty work, be it Greeks, Romans, Spanish Conquistadors, plantation owners, 19th century railroad tycoons, or Boers.

I will agree with you though that the white working class is harmed by this arrangement. It's no surprise that many Midwestern whites in the 1800's opposed slavery not based on any love for black people, but because they recognized how slavery threatened their existence as independent small farmers and wage-earning laborers. Same thing for today, with many working class whites often hostile towards immigration. But our white middle and upper class ignore them. "They're just dumb rednecks, who cares?"

Anonymous said...

Agent Chameleon: To me, in the USA, it appears that Republican elites are trading immigration for cheap labor and Democratic elites are trading immigration for votes.

To me, in Europe, it appears that elites are trading immigration for flow of oil and liberal votes - rather than trading immigration for cheap labor.

With far fewer factories and a much greater reliance on robotics to run those factories, both the USA and Europe have far less need than ever for large amounts of either homegrown or imported unskilled and uneducated manpower.

Thus, one can only conclude that USA and European elites are using unrestrained immigration to hasten the downfall of middle class natives into the total abject poverty of third world lower classes that enables elites to rule without challenge and with virtual slavery to exist.

Prince Charles' recent book told of his idea that (abjectly poor hell hole) Indian slums are the ideal living arrangement for everyone in the West (except him and his ruling class family).

Green Infidel said...

Egghead - my bad, I missed your earlier reply...

"You make it sound like your aunt had an arranged marriage when your aunt presumably had free will to marry whoever she wanted."

Yes - she had "free will" in theory, although in practice, as often happens with women, they end-up "choosing" the one that gives them the most "attention"... because they feel they HAVE to.

Especially in Eastern European cultures, where Femi-naziism hasn't yet fully sunk in. Hence the followers of the Religion of Peace tend NOT to go for "liberal" Western women, but "traditional" ones (from East or West), expecting them to submit more easily. And leaving the femi-nazis for the Westerners... IMO something that could be deliberate, to make sure that Westerners don't have a means to counter their demographic takeover.

As for my comment about interbreeding - it was a reply to Blogger's claim that it's something that is always good, producing "better offspring" (as opposed to a homogeneous culture). My point - if that's the case, Brazil should be the best and most-advanced country in the world (altho in some ways, it is :) ) - you don't get ANYWHERE more "racially-diverse" than there...

But yeah, inbreeding & incest causes problems. So why then all the focus on paedophilia among Catholic priests - when Muslims are at it with their own daughters & first-cousins?

Anonymous said...

Green Infidel: Thanks! From past personal experience, I do agree that Muslim men can be quite handsome and charming as a first act to their later perfidy.

That is WHY Western women MUST be warned - and WHY Muslim men want to pass restrictive "hate speech" laws. Muslims would hate it if the majority of the non-Muslim world discovered their barbarity before it can be fully imposed on non-Muslims.

Interestingly, last night's GoV news feed has an article about the president of the Danish Free Press Society being legally tried for hate speech for pointing out that Muslim families have a much higher incidence of family rape than non-Muslim families.

Anyone who wants to help him can send an email in the defense of free speech to the email address in the original article.