The following piece is not my work. It is written by a friend of mine. I submitted it to MW to check whether it fitted in with his blog policies and he confirmed that it was suitable for publication. As ever my agenda is to engender a lively debate on here.
"In
2000 The United nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
Population Division published a report entitled ‘Replacement Migration
Is It a Solution to Ageing and Declining Populations’. The driver behind
this report is an economic ratio called the support ratio and which was
used to produce various scenarios for mass migration.
Gullible
and sycophantic policy makers in Europe used this flawed economic logic
to drive social policy and therefore started The Great Replacement we
are seeing today.
Under
the United Nations own Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide 9 December 1948 Article 2 it states
In
the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group, as such;
(c)
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
Clearly
the policy of deliberate and calculated Replacement Migration is in
direct conflict, if not in contravention of the United Nations own
Charter Article 2 (c).
To
put into context the United Nations replacement scenarios, Scenario IV
is the most alarming. In order to maintain the support ratio at the 1995
level of 4.3 (working people for every non working person) it predicted
that 701million immigrants would be required between 1995 and 2050 and
by 2050, 75% of the population would be post 1995 immigrants or their
descendants. To quote the report
Thus,
if replacement migration were to be used as the mechanism for shoring
up the potential support ratio in the European Union to its present
level, the total population of the European Union would have grown to
more than three times its present level.
If
this proposal is not genocide as defined by the same organisation then I
fail to see what else it can be. The arrogance of a political class to
assume that a population should be and would wish to be replaced is
staggering.
The
premise behind the support ratio is to maintain the number of the
working population in a ratio sufficient to support an ageing and
retired population and other net claimants. In relation to the UK, when
the welfare state was created by Bevin, the entire system was predicated
on a certain support ratio and a de facto Ponzi scheme was created. It
is now admitted that this support ratio has collapsed and the system by
definition has no reserves. It is ultimately unsustainable and was
doomed to fail the moment it was created.
Furthermore
the support ratio is a far too simplistic driver to use for controlling
population flows, as it fails to factor in private pension funds and
those people able to meet their own retirement arrangements and it also
catastrophically fails to factor in the social consequences of such a
policy.
In
its benign guise of multiculturalism, conniving politicians like Blair,
thrust this replacement policy down the throats of the European people
without asking and without revealing its true purpose, and left them to
deal with the consequences of mass migration and integration of a mainly
muslim influx. Any criticism was countered by espousing the benefits of
migration and its enrichment of society and any criticism was silenced
by the ostensibly socialist governments and the liberal left wing press
by the charge of racism and the invention of a quasi medical condition
named Islamaphobia.
The
United Nations report is further flawed in the respect that it cites
the falling birthrate in Europe to justify the need to have a
replacement policy but it fails to recognise and therefore calculate
that the vast majority of immigrants are muslim and breed at a much
higher rate. Indeed, most governments have a blind eye policy to
polygamy among the muslim population and as a result some men have
multiple wives and as many as twenty children according to Baroness Cox a
cross bench Peer. Rather than supporting an ageing population these
families are usually a burden on the state therefore defeating the
object of the policy in the first place, flawed though it might be. Even
if such a policy was legitimate, which it is not, the consequences are
great, as the majority of immigrants are largely uneducated, cannot
speak the host language and are therefore not fit for purpose.
Not
only have these immigrants failed to integrate and adapt to the customs
of the host nations, they now agitate for their own customs and law to
be adopted. Furthermore the increased militancy and support for the
jihadists has produced the most horrific acts of violence against the
very host Nations which allowed them to live there in the first place as
witnessed by the recent murders in Paris.
The
planned migration is now accelerated due to the mass migration of
people fleeing the conflict in Syria or those using it as an excuse to
find a way to Europe for other reasons and therefore must throw the
planned policy of Replacement Migration into tatters.
In
any event we should not sit here and quietly acquiesce to our own
suicide, we should stand up and shout for the mealy mouthed politicians
and the incumbents of the United Nations to prosecute themselves for
genocide. If you stay silent then Europe will be a muslim country well
before 2050.
Emeritus Professor Robert Rowthorn in his recent publication, The costs and benefits of Large-scale Immigration, has
concluded that the fiscal impact of large scale immigration is slight
while the long term demographic impact is great. Why therefore, when
evidence is so conclusive, do politicians continue with this policy of
madness.
In
a meeting of the West Midlands Conservative Association in 1968 Enoch
Powell, MP for Wolverhampton, made a speech, for which he was eventually
dismissed, warning of the dangers of immigration. He said “It is like
watching a Nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre”
How right he was."
Over to you in the comments.
9 comments:
How are the "indigenous" Brits being physically destroyed if we are not being killed or prevented from breeding?
If anything the birthright among white working class women has increased in recent years. Ok, there's plenty of brown babies being knocked out, but those mums are still successfully passing on their genes, so no genocide there, so to speak.
It's the birth rate among white highly educated women that's dropped, and I can't see immigration has anything to do with that.
While genes mix, they are still immutable. So even if we do all end up brown, I shouldn't worry too much about genocide if I were you.
We are frightened by masses of migrants because the Americans interfered disastrously in Iraq; armed the mujahideen to attack the Russians in Afghanistan then lost control of copy-cat jihadis ;split the satellite countries off the Soviet block destabilising the EU with low wage workers coming here and "our" factories going there.
The EU needs to stand up for its own interests and sphere of influence: the US should be taking in all the "huddled masses" it has created, not Europe.
A bit alarmist. It's certainly well known that the level of education is negatively correlated with the birth rate. So though immigrant populations from some eastern European and Asian states may initially support higher birth rates one would assume that subsequent generations will revert to the indigenous birth rates of the UK/Germany... whatever. Certainly we ought to emphasise the absolute requirement to integrate. ie;learn language, observe laws, respect standards on sexual equality etc.
On the other hand. We've [the West generally]had falling birth rates and lower working to retired population ratios before. Namely in the US [I assume it applies more widely too] where the ratio of workers to retirees fell from 5 to 1 in the early sixties to 3 to 1 in the early 90s. This was accompanied by rise in living standards, due to a persistent rise in productivity over the same period even though there was a productivity slowdown from the mid seventies on.
Even allowing for significant further falls in the worker/retiree ratios to as low as 2:1 in the US, a combination of somewhat longer working lives which some may be happy with and productivity growth of just 1% per annum [historically low] over the next twenty five years, the combined effects would see living standards rise substantially despite an ageing population. There is a distributional issue. Inequality has risen substantially in the last few decades as those at the top of the pile have eaten all the pies. Still, that's another matter.
Complete bollocks: the clue is in the "cide" part of "genocide". It means "killing", even in "the United Nations own Charter Article 2 (c)." Without killing there can be no genocide.
Just another anti-Muslim rant (or possibly White Supremacist rant, it's hard to tell) and, in any case, he doesn't offer any solutions to the "demographic timebomb", so the conclusion seems to be that it is better for white pensioners to starve to death because the government can't afford to pay their pensions that it is for Muslim (or possibly brown) people to come in and pay their pensions for them. My guess is that he's not going to be dependent on a state pension.
Ben Jamin, if all the future mixed girls look like the hot, ‘tanned’ babes on Brazil’s Rio beach then the young me says; yes please!
DBC Reed, completely agree, my wife and I shout at the TV. The whole thrust of BBC news seems designed to try to stop folks drawing a link between these frightened Syrian masses and the failed Foreign policy of the American Empire. It is not a European ‘problem’ it is an American/British problem the Germans have been tasked by the empire to solve. God help us.
paulc 156, you have answered some of my questions about the metrics of this.
In order to maintain the support ratio at the 1995 level of 4.3 (working people for every non working person) …..
The premise behind the support ratio is to maintain the number of the working population in a ratio sufficient to support an ageing and retired population and other net claimants….
I was going to ask, why would a support ratio of 4.3 in 1995, be a constant that has to be achieved at all times and pressed into future policy service. An advanced future, capitalistic market economy could by progress in management and technology have reversed the metric to 1:10, for all I can guess, (if it so chose to do so). Perhaps our masters (1) do not have to confidence in the system they espouse or (B) they have no intention of losing the current war (Buffets term) and addressing the political redistribution issue you mention.
Bayard agreed, Yes when it fits the anger is against specifically European immigrants, Poles etc, (David Cameron diversion/muddying of the issues) and when it suits ex commonwealth immigration Muslims/ Pakistan. As you say the substance is in what he does not answer:
Furthermore the support ratio is a far too simplistic driver to use for controlling population flows, as it fails to factor in private pension funds and those people able to meet their own retirement arrangements
But he is surely correct to say:
It also catastrophically fails to factor in the social consequences of such a policy.
I am keen to discuss that or get the metrics right chaps
Strange how Bayard and indeed 99.9% of those in favour of Islamising Europe choose not to go and live in fully Islamic countries. I can't see what's stopping them. Islamic culture has so much to offer: stoning adulterers, political corruption, lack of democracy, desecrating 2,000 year old architectural gems, female genital mutilation, killing cartoonists and authors (Hitler used to do that), abducting schoolgirls and selling them into slavery, homophobia, holocaust denial, hate preachers. The list goes on and on.
Another flaw in using immigrants to deal with the alleged ageing problem is that less developed countries are rapidly getting to grips with modern medicine and will soon have their own ageing problem. In fact China has relaxed its one child per family rule for precisely that reason.
Strange how Ralph Musgrave and indeed 99.9% of those who believe that Europe is being "Islamicised" choose not to actually look at the figures of what percentage of the population is actually Muslim. If they did, they might realise why there is a difference between those who oppose anti-religious bigotry (of all flavours) and those who actually want to live in another country.
Christian culture has had so much to offer too: political corruption, lack of democracy, desecrating architectural gems, killing cartoonists and authors (Hitler used to do that), abducting schoolgirls and sending them to the gas chambers, homophobia including the death penalty for being homosexual, holocaust denial, hate preachers. The list goes on and on.
"Another flaw in using immigrants to deal with the alleged ageing problem is that less developed countries are rapidly getting to grips with modern medicine and will soon have their own ageing problem. In fact China has relaxed its one child per family rule for precisely that reason."
OK, so your solution is? Or do you deny the problem exists?
If you don't think that Europe is being Islamised then I suggest you take a trip to Sweden and visit Malmö and some of the suburbs of Stockholm and Gothenburg. We are seeing the establishment of 100% Muslim "pockets" where the rule of the country no longer applies.
It is also corrupting the political process as politicians get elected if they support policies which promote Islamic practices.
Anti-Islamic rant it may be but it is well-founded. If the process continues unchecked some European countries will go the way of Lebanon.
Post a Comment