ENGLISH POPULATION PATTERNS

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someoneTweet about this on Twitter

I noticed an article in the Guardian newspaper this week about English population trends. Based on data from the 1981, 1991, and 2001 Censuses, the main figures of interest were as follows:

Year…………………………..1981…………..1991………….2001
Ethnic group: [in thousands]
White………………………..44,682…….44,848………44,925
Black……………………………707………….917………..1,286
South Asian…………………1,031……….1,487………..2,102
Chinese & other Asian………414…………..626…………..825

The article points out that ethnic minorities as a whole have grown by 40% per decade, while the white population had barely changed. The British-born white population has in fact fallen, but this was offset by substantial white European immigration. The increase in ethnic minorities is due to a combination of continuing immigration (mainly ‘families joining earlier immigrants’ – hmm, does this include brides imported from South Asia?), younger age structure, and higher birth rates.

The figures seem broadly correct, but there is one statistical booby-trap: the author appears to have counted ‘mixed race’ in with ‘black’, which will tend to shift the black growth-rate upward and the white growth-rate downward.

The most interesting point (to me, anyway) was the large amount of white European immigration, which I have suspected on the basis of personal observation but seldom seen referred to in print. This prompted me to look up the 2001 Census Report. For further fascinating info….

The 2001 Census Report for England and Wales is available free online from the Office of National Statistics. The main page on the Census is here, and downloads are available here. The main Report is in four PDF files totalling about 4Mb.

Table S015 gives the population of England and Wales broken down by country of birth. Key figures, in thousands, are:

All origins………..52,042
Europe……………48,898
of which…
UK…………………..47,406
Ireland…………………472
Other West Eur………750
East Eur……………….240

Asia………………….1,594
of which….
Mid East……………….217
Far East……………….372
South Asia…………1,005
of which….
India…………………..456
Pakistan………………308
Bangladesh…………..153

Africa………………….809
Caribbean…………….253

USA…………………….144
Canada………………….62
Australia…………………99
New Zealand……………54.
Table S101 contains data on ethnicity (NB: the answer ‘English’, as distinct from ‘British’, was not available). I will give the main groups in percentages:

White:
White British……………………..87.5
White Irish………………………….1.2
White Other………………………..2.6

Mixed:
White/Black Caribbean………..0.5
White/Black African…………….0.15
White/Asian………………………0.36
Other mixed……………………..0.3

Asian or Asian British:
Indian……………………………..2.0
Pakistani………………………….1.4
Bangladeshi………………………0.5
Chinese……………………………0.4
Other………………………………0.5

Black or Black British:
Black Caribbean………………..1.1
Black African…………………….0.9.

No huge surprises here, except perhaps the large number of ‘White Other’, which includes West and East Europeans, US and Canada, Australia and NZ, and a few other odds and ends.

The number of people born in Ireland and/or classifying themselves as Irish has declined substantially since the 1970s, due to improved economic conditions and a lower birth rate in Ireland, and a consequent reduction in the ‘supply’ of Irish migrants.

Of course, all this assumes that the Census data are accurate. There is bound to be some general under-reporting, which the ONS have adjusted for, based on sample surveys. But there will also be more specific under-reporting of certain categories of people, such as the homeless, and illegal immigrants. Probably at least 50,000 should be added to the African and Asian totals to allow for this.

DAVID BURBRIDGE

41 Comments

  1. I am a little surprised to see the Mid Eastern group with a relatively low pop in Britain.

  2. The way I hear some people talk at this site, I’ve gotten the impression that Britain is being completely overrun with non-Western immigrants. Whites still outnumber the non-whites by a ration of 10 to 1. Talk about alarmism.

  3. I meant “ratio”, of course.

  4. well, non-whites are concentrated in a few large cities, so the perception is that they are swarming the country. additionally, i assume that the major media is based in london-where 50% of the people are non-white…. (this also happens in the U.S. where most people in rural america overestimate the number of non-whites because of the perception diversity in large cities)

  5. VFR also has a thread on this topic….

  6. “Talk about alarmism.”

    Give it 50 years – a small amount of time in the history of an ancient Nation and the country is finished. Yeah itll happen when you or I are dead or old enough to die, but British history goes back more than a thousand years and a bit.

  7. In Europe the nations that will survive the longest are those that have shown the greatest immunity and imperviousness to modern American culture, which brings the whole baggage of white guilt and suicidal multi-culti nonsense with it.

    Britain being the closest to America culturally is doomed without hope.

  8. “Give it 50 years – a small amount of time in the history of an ancient Nation and the country is finished.”

    What makes you so certain that current trends will maintain themselves over the course of the next 50 years? The one trend that I do see continuing is that technological and economic change will continue to excellerate exponentially. With the innovations in IT, nanotech, biotech and genetics that will be rolled out by 2050, we don’t even know if it will even matter who lives where by then. If the marginal cost of the production of basic necessities drops to zero, the incentive to immigrate for financial reasons could disappear. The problem here is that you seem to imagine that changes will only occur in demographics and culture while everything else remains the same.

    “Britain being the closest to America culturally is doomed without hope.”

    What BS. Britain and the United States are doing far better than most European countries, in terms of economic growth, GDP per capita, etc.

    Also, I think you romanticize British history to much. When would you prefer to be alive in Britain. During the reign of the Romans? During the Norman invasions? During the time where the Protestants and Catholics were killing each other in droves? During Pax Britannia when much of the male population was being shuttled off to some mosquito-ridden tropical hellhole to conquer or keep the peace. During WWII, when the Germans were firebombing your cities. I don’t know about you, but I’m guessing that most of Britain’s current citizens would choose today over the past without hesitation. I don’t even understand where you’re coming from here.

  9. “What makes you so certain that current trends will maintain themselves over the course of the next 50 years? The one trend that I do see continuing is that technological and economic change will continue to excellerate exponentially. With the innovations in IT, nanotech, biotech and genetics that will be rolled out by 2050, we don’t even know if it will even matter who lives where by then. If the marginal cost of the production of basic necessities drops to zero, the incentive to immigrate for financial reasons could disappear. The problem here is that you seem to imagine that changes will only occur in demographics and culture while everything else remains the same.”

    No sensible man would short-change his country for some technological utopia that might not happen (you might want to read those sci-fi novels that came out in the 1950s about what the world might be like in the year 2000. We are in the year 2000 and people arent driving cars in the sky).

    “Also, I think you romanticize British history to much. When would you prefer to be alive in Britain. During the reign of the Romans?”

    Too much? I see nations as organic creations. Modern day Britain didnt drop from the sky (or through some UFOs). History is a continuum. And without sounding chauvanistic, the US of A wouldnt have come about without English colonists who brought with them traditions of self government and later the wisdom of John Locke without which America wouldnt be what it is today. Sitting in this technological marvel created through centuries of struggle, it is easy to forget how it all came about. Very easy.

    The west is the result of a hard and difficult struggle. Centuries of creation, easy to destroy with modern day hedonism.

    In fact, it is obvious how civilizational death comes about – by shameless self indulgence of the successors of a virtuous and successful people.

  10. “What BS. Britain and the United States are doing far better than most European countries, in terms of economic growth, GDP per capita, etc.”

    I see things in the long range. Lets have an argument when America starts looking like Brazil in 50 years from now. See whos doing better and whos doing worse.

  11. London owes it’s cosmopolitanism in part to its immigrant population. Virtually all my friends are foreigners; Lebanese, Indians and Europeans. My Masters class only had 3 people from the United Kingdom, the rest were from abroad, and it was an excellent lesson at diversity. The investment bank I work at is overwhelming Brit-European but there are a growing number of Asians. I love London in that parochialism and bigotry is hardly present and one feels as though one is residing in a global city rooted in a deep heritage. Cuisine wise we’re second to none except for a few needed Taco Bells (there are no decent Mexican restaurants)

    At any rate demographic trends in the case of the United Kingdom hold no particular relevance and there is an ethnic preponderance in urban regions and the South West. Rural England and suburbia are particularly strong demographically (Scotland is problematic since the Scots have a frighteningly low birth rate) since immigrants flock to the cities.

    Finally 50million British people is quite a feat considering only a few centuries ago there were only 2million of them on these sceptred islands.

  12. “Finally 50million British people is quite a feat considering only a few centuries ago there were only 2million of them on these sceptred islands.”

    Not a patch on Pakistan which now has 150 million and didnt even exist until 56 years ago!

  13. “No sensible man would short-change his country for some technological utopia that might not happen (you might want to read those sci-fi novels that came out in the 1950s about what the world might be like in the year 2000. We are in the year 2000 and people arent driving cars in the sky).”

    I’m not saying to short-change your country. I’m actually in favor of immigration reform. However, your pessimism strikes me as a form of demographic or racial essentialism, ie., that the success of the nation is dependent upon a predominance of people who are quintessentially British.

    Given that Britain was not created by a single people in the first place, but by migrations of Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, and Normans — all people who were culturally distinct enough to go to war against each other at the time — I don’t think that the presence of non-Europeans is going to necessarily destroy your country. Many Muslims, and also blacks from Africa or the Caribbean are problematic, but I’m sure that many are not. Also, you have the Hindus and the Chinese — I haven’t heard anybody accuse them of causing problems. On the contrary, I’ve heard people speak highly of their contributions to Great Britain.

    “Too much? I see nations as organic creations. Modern day Britain didnt drop from the sky (or through some UFOs). History is a continuum. And without sounding chauvanistic, the US of A wouldnt have come about without English colonists who brought with them traditions of self government and later the wisdom of John Locke without which America wouldnt be what it is today. Sitting in this technological marvel created through centuries of struggle, it is easy to forget how it all came about. Very easy.”

    I’m not denying this. I recognize that the US is in debt to British culture for its inheritance of liberal traditions and philosophies. I greatly admire Britain for its contributions to civilization, but that doesn’t mean that I want to live during its zenith of world influence. The early liberal traditions of Britain would feel oppressive to most people today — who wants to live under the Cromwell regime? Also, pride in liberal traditions allowed Britain to justify a rather destructive agenda, much in the same way that America has been doing since WWII. It became a world empire mainly due to commercial motivations, while justifying its expansion with the claim that it would bring civilization, enlightened thought, prosperity and the capacity for self-government to the people it colonized. That’s not what happened of course, With the exception of certain parts of India, most of the colonized countries aren’t much better off now than they were when the British arrived. I’m not counting the Anglophone countries, as they were initially populated and established by the colonizers, not the colonized — the colonized of these countries never really enjoyed the full benefits of British liberty.

    (The British were the neo-conservatives of the early modern era, and my knowledge of Pax Britannia’s failure to accomplished its stated goals is one of the reasons why I’m not a neocon. And conditions are sufficiently different now that building an empire is no longer really necessary to ensure national security — today, it is more of a detriment, I think.)

    “I see things in the long range. Lets have an argument when America starts looking like Brazil in 50 years from now. See whos doing better and whos doing worse.”

    Brazil won’t look like Brazil 50 years from now. The United States sort of looks like Brazil already, the main difference being that America’s poor are less desparate than Brazil’s poor due to greater success in the world of commerce. However, there are many indicators of future change in Latin America: Brazil’s expansion of the Mercosur trade block, the emergence of China as a new consumer base to export products to, urban and rural land reform, international infrustructure projects, etc. We’ll see.

  14. Peter, I think you hit the nail on the head here:
    “The west is the result of a hard and difficult struggle. Centuries of creation, easy to destroy with modern day hedonism.

    In fact, it is obvious how civilizational death comes about – by shameless self indulgence of the successors of a virtuous and successful people.”

    I’m not doubting that some disparate groups (some Muslims and some Blacks like Chris W has alluded to) may be problematic in Britain.

    However, as the son of S. Asian immigrants, I know I didn’t cause the US’s high divorce rate:
    http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

    I didn’t cause the rising decadence of the youth:
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Movies/09/02/sprj.cas03.wkd.nikki.reed.ap/index.html

    I didn’t cause the declining birth rate in the Anglosphere:
    http://economia.unipv.it/harrod/edition/editionstuff/rfh.40f.htm

    I think there are valid reasons to want immigration reform- and, as GC has acknowledged, even little to no immigration from a purely cultural (and not economic) perspective. However, these are some of the biggest cultural perils in my country. Blaming immigrants for any of these problems is, for the most part, tenuous (although I grant multiculturality may play a huge role in excacerbating American decadence via the largely negative influence of Afro- American rap).

  15. If “decadence” is causing the fall of civilization then I’ll gladly admit to being a part of the problem. *starts up an old NWA album*

  16. “Also, you have the Hindus and the Chinese — I haven’t heard anybody accuse them of causing problems. On the contrary, I’ve heard people speak highly of their contributions to Great Britain.”

    Let the Hindus and Chinese by all means enrich their nations – we can live without them. Britain wont become third world without them.

    “colonized of these countries never really enjoyed the full benefits of British liberty”

    Liberty was granted when we left – full liberty, with predictable consequences (especially in Africa). That said, I have never justified the Empire – never have. It was ultimately not good for us. As Ive said before here, Britain isn’t any better off than Germany today which never had any colonies.

    But what does the Empire have to do with my initial point?

    “Brazil won’t look like Brazil 50 years from now.”

    It wont become Switzerland – even though free trade fanatics and Libertoids dream of it. There is a great deal that goes into making nations successful. And those factors cant be replicated in every country. Importation of aliens can dilute those factors beyond usefulness among the successful(as in happening in many western nations today).

    “However, as the son of S. Asian immigrants, I know I didn’t cause the US’s high divorce rate”

    I never argued that immigrants caused the self-indulgence of natives.

  17. Of course the interesting thought in all this is what will the UK look like when our grandchildren reach our present age.

    As the non-European population continues to grow, and the European population does not, even if the growth rate of the former tends to zero over the next 50 years, the ‘ethnic’ population of the UK (or England really) cannot fail to reach 30 million by mid-century.

    The question is: which Englishman alive today, in the unlikely event he would have a chance to vote on the matter, would have have said “Yes, absolutely! Thank you, political leaders, that’s exactly what I want for my grandkids. A population of 80 million including 30 million darkies”. I think not.

  18. “Thank you, political leaders, that’s exactly what I want for my grandkids.”

    Phil,

    We elect the politicians and we let them get away with it. The voters can throw Blair and the other clowns out tomorrow if they want. Whats stopping them from doing it?

  19. “Let the Hindus and Chinese by all means enrich their nations – we can live without them. Britain wont become third world without them. “

    Or with ‘em. They’re not going to cause Britain to become third world.

  20. “Or with ‘em. They’re not going to cause Britain to become third world.”

    If I wanted to live with Hindus and Chinese Id migrate to Singapore.

  21. “If I wanted to live with Hindus and Chinese Id migrate to Singapore.”

    And so our discussion ends, as a preference is not something I can dispute.

  22. “And so our discussion ends, as a preference is not something I can dispute.”

    Or here is something you wont dispute either. As Godless says:

    “France wont be France without the French”.

  23. Er… well, glad I started a debate, but I’m not joining in!

    I should perhaps have explained, for the benefit of non-UK readers, what the geographical coverage of the figures is.

    The United Kingdom consists of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain consists of England, Wales, and Scotland. (BTW, ‘Great Britain’ is in origin just a geographical term distinguishing the island of Britain from the French peninsula of Britanny – ‘Grande Bretagne’ versus ‘Bretagne’.)

    The figures I have quoted from the 2001 Census all relate to England and Wales combined. Proportions of all ethnic minorities are probably slightly higher in England alone. The figures quoted from the Guardian apparently do cover England alone. None of the figures include Scotland and Northern Ireland. Total UK population is about 59 million.

    As someone pointed out in earlier discussion, there is wide variation in the concentration of ethnic minorities. In the Greater London area, non-white EMs are about 25% of the population. There is also a high proportion of EMs in the West Midlands, in Leicester (East Midlands), and in the textile areas of Yorkshire and Lancashire. But there are also parts of England where EMs are practically absent.

  24. I agree with Mr Peter Phillips (no relation AFAIK). I’ve lived all my life in London, but for the first time I begin to feel that it no longer belongs to me and mine. It’s not necessarily a worse place, but for a conservative (a real one, not your neo-Trotskyite burlesque of the creed) any unnecessary change is too much, and too much of it is unbearable.

    No political party with a chance of power ever offered Britons the opportunity to stop immigration in its tracks. As in the States, there is an unspoken consensus to let ‘em keep flooding into the cities until the whites can take no more and have no suburbs left to fly to. The Labour Party needs coloured votes in its inner city rotten boroughs; the “Conservatives” (ho ho) as the party of globalised Big Business appreciate the cheapness of immigrant labour.

    Neither party has shown any demographic foresight or appreciation of the delicate balance of forces which sustains a Christian, patriotic, Caucasoid culture and civilisation. Their horizons are limited to the next election date. They have been pussywhipped by environmentalist “humanitarianism” and mouthed the Axiom of Global Equality until it became a mantra against which reasoned dissent became blasphemy. An apparatus of hate-speech laws enforces the falsehood that “the only difference between us is the colour of our skins”.

    As in America white workers, not the safely segregated liberal bourgeoisie, are the sullen victims of this egalitarian crap. As in “1984″, if there is hope it lies with the proles. There are glimmerings of revolt: faced with growling inchoate dissent from the lower orders, the parties are having to talk (not yet act) tougher on illegal immigration and racial and religious separatism by minorities in cities. The irredentist British National Party is making some gains in local elections. TV and the liberal press are suddenly much readier to discuss the existence of deep-seated race differences honestly, even if most of the proposed solutions are still 1960s blue-sky stuff. There is a new pressure group, MigrationWatch UK, making an eminently reasonable and “respectable” case for a halt.

    The English tradition of civic peacefulness which has enabled us to avoid war among ourselves for over 300 years has infected the incomers; they’ve even learned to queue for buses. London is not yet a frightening place. There are no ghettoes.
    The UK’s best hope lies in the very high rate of miscegenation between low-IQ white women and black men, which (if combined with strict barriers against further influxes, and a modicum of repatriation) should wash out most of the Negroid element in the nation’s genome in two or three generations. The Asians are a tougher nut, but the signs of assimilation are at least as strong as those of wagon-circling.

    Race mixing is the best indication that separation can be overcome. We will still have a cognitively disabled underclass, but it will be less visibly different. And in a country as healthily wedded to hypocrisy as Britain, appearances matter a lot. I would back our future as a nation state over the USA’s any day.

  25. WJ:

    I echo some of those sentiments and disagree with some.

    I used to live in London too, as a student not so long ago. There are parts of the city that are still tolerable. The West End is still reasonably clean and functional but it is frighteningly expensive. The mushrooming of council houses and the flood of immigrants has driven real estate prices so far up in London that it no longer makes sense even for affluent people to live there anymore. There is nothing about London which particularly attracts me to it to make me want to live in it with all its problems.

    I think the white population in London is also disproportionately underclass and the combination of that with poor minorities gives it the most depressing dirty look one can find in Europe. Its probably the dirtiest city in Western Europe by far and certainly one of the ugliest – believe it or not. Its not a patch on any city in Germany for instance.

    Crime has been increasing constantly in the last ten years or so. I don’t know how one could say that its not “dangerous” – if dangerous means downtown Detroit then that’s true. But crime has been constantly going up and shows no signs of abating. The difference here is that the underclass doesn’t have easy access to guns and therefore gun related crime is probably less than most American cities. But that said, it does have a lot of crime overall and in most indexes of crimes such as mugging it has a higher incidence of crime than New York City.

    I think the problem with the Conservative Party is that it was orphaned when Maggy Thatcher left and since then there have been so many internal squabbles that the Party is unable to make a serious bid for power. I believe that there are factions within the Party that are perfectly capable of stopping this slide into the abyss if they were to take control. I don’t think they would simply surrender the country to asylum seekers without a fight.

    Now speaking of miscegenation, I cant see how this is a solution to anything. In fact, all miscegenation has done in Britain (from what I can see) is add substantially to the number of illegitimate children – who are now mulatto instead of being black or white. These are people without hope. Whether black or mulatto (or white) I cant see how a massive number of illegitimate children solves anything (or an increase in the sheer number of legitimate children in the underclass).

    Secondly, there is no end to the immigration mess. How many blacks will the white underclass absorb? There is a physical limit to that because there appears no physical limit to the number of blacks pouring into Britain – especially from Africa. This is a problem that ought not to have been created in the first place.

    If I were to draw judgement on this, I don’t see how Britain has more hope than America. The only difference between the two nations is that Britain is a little behind in the slide (time wise). But both are on the slide – that’s beyond doubt. And most of all, public resistance to it is much less openly expressed than in other places in Europe. For instance, when Austrians had enough of this nonsense they just elected Jorg Haider and that was enough to send chills down the spines of the centrists. The same thing has started happening in a lot of other places in Europe as well and in Germany the mainline Conservatives are themselves openly opposed to immigration. So Continental Europe is better placed in that sense.

    I honestly don’t think Britain will be able to stop this tide. It wont happen. There will be ebbs and flows and ups and downs but overall its not going to stop unless there is a horrible reaction against it that suddenly makes immigration as verboten in politics as raising taxes.

  26. PP: The one essential to a truly conservative outlook is the avoidance of phoney historicist fatalism: it’s all gone too far, there’s no hope, etc. This is only the flipside of Marxoid crap about the inevitable triumph of “scientific” socialism. Burke didn’t despair during the most loathsome excesses of the French Revolution, when their bloodstained scum were stalking our shores. Why should we be afraid of relatively few aliens, mostly less intelligent than ourselves, mostly wishing us no conscious harm and prepared to play the UK system rather than topple it? Fatalists play God, and to a true Tory that’s blasphemous.

    There is no historical warrant for such superstition. The UK is far from the tipping point into a multiracial mess. The white race (Northern European branch) is distinguished from other, often smarter breeds, by its optimistic, pragmatic willingness to ignore the call of Kismet. It has overcome far worse threats than black and brown adulteration in the course of its rise to global cultural and spiritual hegemony, which is not founded on guns or money but on the optimised blend of qualities in our genome. Whites have made adapted better to the world’s various climates and social conditions than other races, hence their role as its conquerors; yet they are also more at home with each other than other peoples are.

    English has become the world’s lingua franca and, to some extent, the tongue men speak conditions how they think. Anglo-Saxons and Celts, along with a few other supremely civilised, usually pacific peoples- the Scandinavians, the Dutch and best of all the Schweizer Deutsch- have found the best balance between organic, necessary change and tradition. The USA’s looming tragedy is that it was founded in violence and rebellion, and is now reaping the harvest of 200 years’ hypocritical pretence that one can bring peace (“democracy”, “liberty”, “human rights”) with a sword, while failing to incorporate the ex-slave and Latino masses forming separate nations within it. How terrible it was to see those performing monkeys, the Democratic Party presidential hopefuls, trying to speak Spanish in their efforts to ingratiate themselves with Latino voters: the sound of the tocsin for national solidarity. We don’t have those problems, or won’t when we get rid of Blair and purge our body politic of the servile neoconnerie he spouts.

    All I would say concerning London is that I have been roaming all parts of it, day and night, for 40 years. I have neither sought trouble nor avoided it, but I have never seen even the immediate aftermath of a serious criminal act, let alone one in commission. Like sex, crime is 99% talk and 1% action. Go to the Arab shanty towns round Paris if you really want to be scared, not to gentrifying Brixton and Peckham or slightly intimidating Stonebridge Park.

    As for dirt in the streets as a measure of social decay, don’t forget that when Britain was at the height of her imperial power in the 1850s, the “Great Stink” from that open sewer, the Thames, drove MPs out of Parliament. We licked that problem by building a sewerage system which still works. And we can solve the comparable problem of immigration the same way: by treating the effluent (race-mixing) and limiting the influx of untreated pollutants.

  27. Hispanic American population information:

    Quotes from We, the American Hispanics (September 1993):

    The Hispanic population grew by…61 percent between 1970 and 1980.

    The Hispanic population grew by 53 percent between 1980 and 1990.

    The Mexican population nearly doubled between 1970 and 1980, and nearly doubled again by 1990.

    Between 1951 and 1960, over 2.5 million people entered the country legally. Of those, 1 in 5 came from Latin America.

    Between 1961 and 1970, 3.3 million immigrants entered the United States, with 1 in 3 coming from Latin America. During the 1970′s, there were nearly 4.5 million immigrants, with about 40 percent coming from Latin America.

    By the 1980′s, 47 percent of immigrants were from Latin America.

    Quotes from The Hispanic Population (May 2001):

    The Hispanic population increased by 57.9 percent, from 22.4 million in 1990 to 35.3 million in 2000, compared with an increase of 13.2 percent for the total U.S. population. Population growth varied by group. Mexicans
    increased by 52.9 percent, from 13.5 million to 20.6 million.

    Quotes from “Current Numbers” (Center for Immigration Studies):

    During the 1990s, an average of more than 1.3 million immigrants…settled
    in the United States each year.  Between January 2000 and March 2002,
    3.3 million additional immigrants…arrived.

  28. WJ-I deleted the term “wetback” and replaced it with “latino.” I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don’t understand how that can be offensive in the American context. I have no problem with discussing this topic from a cultural or racially conscious perspective & and attributing negative generalizations, etc.-but please don’t degenerate into name calling of that sort….

  29. “If “decadence” is causing the fall of civilization then I’ll gladly admit to being a part of the problem. *starts up an old NWA album*”

    Pople like you and me (yes, I play “Straight Outta Compton” on MP3 as well) use that stuff as escapist entertainment from our largely responsible, self-disciplined lives. The problem is low-IQ people who don’t realize what a terrible idea that lifestyle is.

  30. “The one essential to a truly conservative outlook is the avoidance of phoney historicist fatalism: it’s all gone too far, there’s no hope, etc. This is only the flipside of Marxoid crap about the inevitable triumph of “scientific” socialism. Burke didn’t despair during the most loathsome excesses of the French Revolution, when their bloodstained scum were stalking our shores. Why should we be afraid of relatively few aliens, mostly less intelligent than ourselves, mostly wishing us no conscious harm and prepared to play the UK system rather than topple it? Fatalists play God, and to a true Tory that’s blasphemous.”

    We are faced with a different kind of animal now. Its not a crisis of politics, it’s a crisis of the mind – actually paralysis of the mind. Self defence in the name of country is now “racist” – the worst of all evils in this modern world. That being the case, I don’t see how temporary measures would stop the tide. Its like trying to win a game of tennis with a hand tied behind your back – hey we don’t actually want those unwashed millions but we do love them because we are NOT RACISTS. Sorry old chap, wont work.

    A more consistent defence of country would run as follows:

    We are an Anglo-Saxon/Celt nation. Full stop. And it shall never cease to be so. Over our dead bodies. Anyone got the guts to say that today? Not except gutter Nazis who are no hopers in politics.

    “The UK is far from the tipping point into a multiracial mess.”

    Well the tipping point is some way off. But we are on track.

    “The USA’s looming tragedy is that it was founded in violence and rebellion”

    Well I don’t know what to say about that. It seemed fine until the early 1960s – and things had stayed that way for more than a few centuries. So it was created by violence and rebellion but which nation isn’t? Nations are violent creations by definition – wasn’t Germany created violently? Wasn’t Great Britain created violently by English domination over centuries of the Scots, Irish and Welsh against their own will? That doesn’t make America unique.

    I don’t think I see America’s collapse as germinating from its founding simply because it had black slaves and dispossessed native Americans. For a nation to survive all it needs is raw spirit and America did fine for a very long time – tell the Japanese to apologise for what they did in Manchuria in the 1930s, they wont. The point is, when you start shooting yourself in the foot, you’ve got no one to blame but yourself. No point in blaming George Washington, Madison and Jefferson for the mess people created or started creating in 1960s.

    As for the democrats trying to talk Latino, we have Robin Cook telling us all to eat Chicken Tikka in the name of cultural enrichment. I struggle to see the difference. The Labour Party panders to asylum seekers, blacks and Asians and the Democrats pander to Blacks and Hispanics. Whats the difference?

    “Like sex, crime is 99% talk and 1% action.”

    Maybe, but Im only going by home office statistics.

    “Go to the Arab shanty towns round Paris if you really want to be scared, not to gentrifying Brixton and Peckham or slightly intimidating Stonebridge Park.”

    Paris is a sewer and the Algerians made it one. Don’t disagree.

    “As for dirt in the streets as a measure of social decay, don’t forget that when Britain was at the height of her imperial power in the 1850s, the “Great Stink” from that open sewer, the Thames, drove MPs out of Parliament.”

    That’s because the national spirit was robust. Today it is close to dead.

    “WJ-I deleted the term “wetback” and replaced it with “latino.” I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don’t understand how that can be offensive in the American context.”

    Razib,

    Not wanting to be too touchy on this subject but you might also want to erase the name Dwight David Eisenhower from the history books since he initiated “Operation Wetback” (or was that “Operation Latino”?) – Just kidding

  31. Not wanting to be too touchy on this subject but you might also want to erase the name Dwight David Eisenhower from the history books since he initiated “Operation Wetback” (or was that “Operation Latino”?) – Just kidding

    i’ll do that when you agree that all historical figures should be judged by the norms of today ;)

  32. “i’ll do that when you agree that all historical figures should be judged by the norms of today ;)”

    This might be a problem since almost all of WORLD history is racist, sexist, homophobic, prejudiced, discriminatory, barbaric, bigoted and uncivilized! ;)

    Golly! I just realised the hippies invented civilization! Without them wed still be living in the bloody dark ages!!!

  33. is it british humor to purposely miscontrue what i’m trying to say? and for someone who praises organic virtues you seem intent on throwing up black & white dichotomies… (if abraham lincoln used the word “nigger” to describe blacks, is it OK to use that word in public conversation now?)

  34. The British military has been recruiting potential military personnel from overseas countries, “including Fiji, St Lucia, [and] St Vincent and the Grenadines” (“Sending extra British troops ‘pushes Army to break point’”).

  35. Well, I’ve said before I think Peter is too pessimistic but more important even if he was 100% correct his position is the wrong one to take. It’s like saying the Germans are sure to crush the Polish Army so I’m not going to show up for the defense of Warsaw.

    I read the Derbyshire/Locke exchange when it first came out. I consider Derbyshire to be one of the few NROers I can still stand to read but this was not one of his finest pieces. Locke is an astute guy, although he was wrong about Iraq, and he makes a lot of good points, well worth considering but he acknowledges, only in passing, the main reason for my own somewhat downbeat perspective.
    “what we’ve got eerily resembles the (all but forgotten) economics of fascism.”

    The interpenetration of the state and large corporations seems to be proceeding at an alarming pace everywhere on earth including the US. This “soft fascism” (not so soft if you live in Iraq of course), a form of American Keiretsu, could and I suspect will have many pernicious effects on the future development of the US economy.
    My suspicion is that it will, among other things, suppress technological developments that would be liberating, such as new energy sources, while accelerating technologies that will be oppressive, such as surveillance systems. It will freeze out technological innovators and entrepreneurs simply by having recourse to special contacts with the state, while advancing technologies that meet the interests of the state rather than consumers. And there’s much more.

    This is why I am less optimistic about “zero marginal cost” production technologies and so on than some others who post here. I recognize their technical feasibility but I doubt their real viability because they would have a destabilizing (or, better, a “dynamising”) effect on the economy and this new corporatist state will be a force for stasis (to use Virginia Postrel’s terms.)

    I’ve run on too long but a final point is that I believe a major failing of conservatives of all stripes as well as other pro-enterprise types is that they lack a sufficiently critical view of the state. The Iraq disaster was 100% predictable and it would have turned into a disaster even if it had been fully legitimate and desparately important to the defense of the US. This is another reason for my concerns.

    I guess I’m going to have to bite the bullet soon and post a real essay on this.

  36. I detest bearish sentiments as to the course of global civilisation since I am reminded of the economists at my bank.

    Fleeing Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait at the tender age of 5 has lent me a natural optimism and taught me to appreciate my residence in the thriving metropolises of London & Paris.

    The appropriate context for European demographic decline should take into account the historic population of the continent. There was a twenty five-fold jump in the population of the British Isles over the past few centuries, which is simply phenomenal. Europe, along with India and China, has an astoundingly dense population.

    http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/007248179x/student_view0/chapter8/web_map_4.html

    Europe’s advanced urbanisation and rapid dissolution of the nuclear family are responsible for the collapsing birth rate. From a historical perspective urban regions are not demographically sustainable, having required a continual influx of healthy young peasants to maintain the population (today’s influx are no different, merely of a darker hue).

    If asked to draft policy on this matter I would encourage grass root programs targeted for the sustainability and growth of rural populations in Europe. The true embers of French and national cultures will be tenaciously preserved in the countryside and their future survival is critical.

    Historically cities have been ethnically diverse and cosmopolitan whereas the outlying rural regions preserve the authenticity of their culture.

    I believe that is the ideal, which should be strived for in a globalising and homogenising world. London can continue as the international capital of the world but at the same time English culture can survive and thrive in the green fields and forests of England.

  37. Per Zachary:

    “From a historical perspective urban regions are not demographically sustainable, having required a continual influx of healthy young peasants to maintain the population (today’s influx are no different, merely of a darker hue).”

    This is very disingenuous. The healthy young peasants that populated Europe’s, and more particularly Britain’s, cities in the 18th and 19th Centuries shared, for the most part, the same history, culture, language, religion, and national allegiance as the erstwhile urban population. Today’s influx – predominantly Afro-Asian – is qualitatively different.

    Again per Zachary:

    “Historically cities have been ethnically diverse and cosmopolitan whereas the outlying rural regions preserve the authenticity of their culture”

    This of course is self-serving cant, intended to anaesthesize the indigenous population against the baleful consequences of many million unwanted, uninvited and unassimilable aliens in their major cities. In the case of Britain the ethnic population, where ethnic is taken to mean non-indigenous to NW Europe, amounted to less than 30,000 as late as 1952 (leaving aside the singular example of the Eastern European Jews). So the history of ethnic diversity in Britain is very short, and has come to pass within the span of two generations.

    As an Englishman, I find it extremely depressing to visit our national capital. It’s distressing to observe the steady decline towards a kind of disembodied multinational free zone like 19th Century Shanghai, its role as a shabby billet for the wandering legions of the world’s huddled masses, and as open territory for marauding bands of foreign criminals, the latter being ably supplemented by uncontrolled and perhaps uncontrollable gangs of feral ‘British’ blacks. While London has an historical role as a global trading centre I, like the large majority of native Brits, don’t believe that requires us to open our door to anyone who just feels like turning up, or to continue to offer the welcome mat to those who have no value to offer the host society.

    And concerning the notion that a kind of cordon sanitaire can be maintained between an increasing foreign London and an English rest of England, this is errant nonsense. As the current regime amply demonstrates, the liberal agenda seeks to ensure that no corner of the sceptr’d isles shall be denied the delights and benefits of multicultural and multiracial ‘diversity’. As a minor but telling example, consider the barmy plan to build a enormous barracks for ‘asylum seekers’ at various locations in the English countryside. This is not to mention the plans, verging on the criminally insane, to further dramatically expand the availability of work permits for third-world applicants thereby igniting another strand of rampant chain migration of extended family members.

    So where’s it all going to end? Well sooner or later there has be a mainstream political solution that is line with the wants, fears and aspirations of the English people. The longer this is deferred, the more opportunities arise for serious social stress and racial discord, and the closer the BNP comes to achieving political critical mass.

  38. I believe that many immigrant groups have lots of children when they first arrive and then their birth rate drops off as they become more successful and wealthy. There is some evidence that in UK/US women become better educated and freer thus have fewer children, become more part of their inherited culture. The worry of some is that Muslims in the UK are rather insular and do not try to assimilate themselves into UK society.

    Living in London you do meet many exceptions to this rule but I believe that is a major worry. Oddly enough, having some experience in a highly Asian-subcontinent area of Southall, many of the Muslim and Hindu elders worry that their young are becoming to Anglicised. Once this happens then tend to have smaller families, move away to live in a seperate house/area etc.

    Muslims in the UK (and to an extent in the US) have a major problem of bad press. The outspoken publicity seeking extremists give them all a bad name and make assimilation much harder. (For instamce, more secular Muslim youth have problems with extremist bullying and abuse. A Muslim guy going out with an Anglo girl gets more abuse from some of his fellow Muslims than he does from whites.)

  39. I don’t want to beat a dead horse so here’s my take on the thing.

    Immigration in Europe has been a historical phenomenon, since the 19th century France has been welcoming “hordes” of European immigrants (French demographic decline has spanned the last century and in the 1950s France had at least 4million immigrants).

    The European Union implicitly accepts that free trade is dependent on open borders. Though they still have yet to grasp the concept of creative destruction or the culture of hire & fire yet but only when they do can they reassert any modicrum of influence on global events. However closure of the borders is tantamount to economic suicide.

    I believe in the relevance and importance of nationalism yet that must be tempered by globalism and awareness of a wider community. A healthy approach to diversity will lead to a preservation of the local culture.

    Take India, or rather more specifically Bombay, for that matter. The city is rooted in an Indian milieu, much as London has a deep Brit-English heritage, but it has a distinct international flavour to it that allows multi-culturalism to thrive. Global metropolises are defined by their culture hetrogeneity and the urban composite blends, which arise from them. Mass urbanisation, as we are experiencing today, is allowing members of the human race to live with one another when there had been no previous interaction.

    Furthermore the defining characteristic of Western (Anglo-Saxon and to a certain extent Romance cultures) civilisation has been to create a framework independent of ethnic parochialism.

    For instance America is fundamentally rooted in civic ideals and economic freedom.

    As a student of Hernando de Soto’s economic principles I believe the success of the Western economic experiment derives mainly from the interaction of freedom, regulation and liquidity as opposed to the particular ethnos of the population. The 19th century congressional Homestead act, which released the potential of the American continent and was critical in developing the anarchic West, illustrates the need for property laws adapted to local circumstance. Generating liquidity in third world countries is the task of the new century and I very much doubt the importance of demographics (except of coures when it comes age structure of the population) in this quest.

    America and Britain are meritocracies and is transcending ethnic origin. One may have to be Han to be authentically Chinese but a love of freedom is the prerequisites to being America. Truly a radical concept in a world riven with strife.

    My extended family, since dispersing from Pakistan, has dug deep roots in the Anglo-American sphere. All my cousins, on both sides, are American citizens (my brothers and I, alone of our generation, retain Pakistani citizenship) and are inculculated in the values that made America great.

    My grandmother, born in Delhi, was buried last month in Orlando and I think it is the genius of America that it was able to make her and her children cherish American values as their own.

    America, and her parent Britain, is a light unto humanity in that the distinction of colour, creed and caste is shed. The values espoused are universal and the bedrock for future human interactions. We may have differences in cultural perspective and outlook but the American (and ultimately Anglo-Saxon) experience has finally taught human beings how to build on their commonalities to achieve the individual and greater good.

  40. “Immigration in Europe has been a historical phenomenon.”

    Not that old chestnut again. Migration within Europe of ethnically close tribal groups (9th Century Danes to England, say) is a completely different matter to the hordes of Afro-Asians who have appeared in the last 50 years.

    “Take India, or rather more specifically Bombay, for that matter.”

    I’m sure you will understand a Westerner’s reluctance to view Bombay as any kind of positive examplar.

    “America and Britain are meritocracies and is transcending ethnic origin.”

    America is not Britain and vice versa, and the impact of third-world immigration is vastly different. Immigration is not a serious concern for American whites as long as flight remains a viable option. As a refugee from Silicon Valley I know this personally.

    “America, and her parent Britain, is a light unto humanity in that the distinction of colour, creed and caste is shed. The values espoused are universal and the bedrock for future human interactions. We may have differences in cultural perspective and outlook but the American (and ultimately Anglo-Saxon) experience has finally taught human beings how to build on their commonalities to achieve the individual and greater good.”

    Quite possibly so, but Western societies developed in this way for their own ends. There was never any intention to make our societies so open and welcoming that the other 9/10 of the world’s population would be motivated to attempt to come and live with us.

    Why not take the universal values (and the extended family) back to the subcontinent and do your part there to spread the light and milk of human kindness?

  41. “WJ Phillips:

    I am actually very surprised that you’re more hopeful than Peter Phillips. I think the romanticization of the “proles” and the stuff about England being Christian (when it’s largely secular now…) is kinda strange, and I’ve gone over our points of difference in much detail in previous posts – but optimism is a necessary quality to effect change.”

    I’m not romanticising anyone. As in “1984″ the proles are just the 90% or more of the population outwith the Party, which in Britain 2003 is 97% or more who are neither professional pols nor voluntary activists. Most of these, maybe 75%, have some sort of stake in the country (housing, pension rights). But the upwardly mobile among them, formerly proles in the Marxian sense, feel the downside of mass immigration more than the lib-prog elite. Hence they are likelier to throw up leaders (or just leaderless resistance) who will roll it back.

    Don’t underestimate the bone-deep influence of Christian ethics either. It virtually guarantees we will never have a race war or a Nazi-like government. Unlike the USA, we have a consecrated Crown and a national church. As Churchill said, most of us support that church from the outside like a flying buttress, bu ultimately most of us find ourselves inside it at times of communal rejoicing or crisis. There’s nothing like it for glueing a country together- certainly not flagolatry US-style. Even Orwell, who spent a lifetime professing agnosticism, wound up being married and buried in the C of E.

    That said, we British whites will not let our empathy and good nature be presumed upon indefinitely by the globalist adulterators of national stock. Let them heed the warning of our greatest conservative poet:

    THE WRATH OF THE AWAKENED SAXON
    by Rudyard Kipling

    It was not part of their blood,
    It came to them very late,
    With long arrears to make good,
    When the Saxon began to hate.

    They were not easily moved,
    They were icy — willing to wait
    Till every count should be proved,
    Ere the Saxon began to hate.

    Their voices were even and low.
    Their eyes were level and straight.
    There was neither sign nor show
    When the Saxon began to hate.

    It was not preached to the crowd.
    It was not taught by the state.
    No man spoke it aloud
    When the Saxon began to hate.

    It was not suddenly bred.
    It will not swiftly abate
    Through the chilled years ahead,
    When Time shall count from the date
    That the Saxon began to hate.

a