DaveR

"this video is unavailable" Pretty much what I expected!

Projected to be 95% immigrant or immigrant descent by 2031. That shocking figure is not a finger in the air scaremongering attempt, it is the official, ONS approved figure from seasoned demographers at the University of Manchester, Ludi Simpson & Stephen Jivraj, as reported by the Economist. They believe far from reducing immigration levels as promised, current and future UK governments will maintain or likely increase 3rd world immigration to the UK. Barking and Dagenham is, in some ways, even more incredible, being as it was right up until about 2000, one of the last bastions of undiluted, working class Englishness in London. This, in the 1980s and 1990s was the quintessential 'white working class' east London suburb that embodied Thatchers 'essex man' In the 1991 census, it was recorded as being 94.2% white, even by 2001 still nigh on 90%. By 2031, only around 8% of whites will remain. Already today, in Barking and Dagenham public schools, white British pupils have fallen from around 86% in 2000 to 23% as of January 2018. The ethnic evolution of Luton however, a medium sized town 30 miles or so outside of London, is quite something to behold. The only parallel I can think of, is Detroit, which went from about 80% white in the early 50s, to 10% white by the early 2010s. Luton looks to beat that by about 20 years, going from over 80% white in 1991, to about 10% white & only 5% white British by 2031... https://www.economist.com/britain/2015/06/06/from-infusion-to-diffusion?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/frominfusiontodiffusion I wouldnt actually bother reading the Economist Article, its just where the graphic linked to (though is not displayed on the page itself), because it of course is full of mistruths, such as saying the fact that UKIP got 'only' 12% of the Luton vote in 2015 compared to 14% across England is evidence people in Luton just love the mass of 3rd world colonists...of course the reality is UKIP, according to Pollster IPSOS mori, got statistically zero votes from non-whites, so to get 12% overall of an electorate that is perhaps only 45% white British, is in fact far more impressive than 14% of an electorate that is still nearly 90% white nationwide. It means pver 1 in 4 white Lutonians voted UKIP, compared with about 1 in 7 white Britons overall, meaning a white in Luton was actually nearly twice as likely to vote UKIP than the country at large...not withstanding the fact that fully a quarter of white Britons voted with their feet and fled Luton between 2001 and 2011. But the demographic figures are interesting due to their candour...none of this 'might become a minority some decades into the future' but a clear demonstration that white Britons will not just become a minority in a little over 10 years, but a tiny, electorally insignificant and unimportant minority. Invisible and overlooked at best, ridiculed and persecuted at worst. For White British people to make up, as they did, around 75% of that 80.2% in 1991, to fall to become statistically insignificant, just 5%, by 2031, is truly staggering. I'd guess that remaining 5% are mostly white women who have converted to Islam...the last vestiges of the tribe of Britons who lived on that soil for the previous 1000 years. 1991 Luton had a population of 171,671 and was 80.2% white (137,665) and 74.0%* white British (126,977*) 2001 Luton had a population of 184,371 and was 71.9% white (132,566) and 65.0% white British (119,793) 2011 Luton had a population of 203,201 and was 54.7% white (111,079) and 44.6% white British (90,530) *1991 census had no 'white, British category', country of Birth is used instead Luton Schools, percent white/white British, annual census carried out in January every year. 1997: 63.1% / 61.7% 1998: 62.5% / 59.7% 1999: 62.5% / 59.2% 2000: 61.3% / 58.2% 2001: 60.1% / 56.9% 2002: 58.9% / n/a 2003: 56.1% / 51.7% 2004: 54.2% / 48.3% 2005: 52.1% / 45.9% 2006: 50.3% / n/a 2007: n/a / n/a 2008: 46.0% / 40.4% 2009: 43.7% / 37.7% 2010: 42.0% / 35.9% 2011: 40.2% / 34.0% 2012: 38.4% / 31.9% 2013: 36.9% / 30.0% 2014: 35.8% / 28.0% 2015: 35.0% / 26.1% 2016: 34.2% / 24.2% 2017: 32.8% / 21.8% 2018: 32.4% / 21.1% Mr Molyneux needs to stop worrying about Germany and Sweden and report on the dire demographic situation in the UK. The UK has endured what Germany endured for 18 months for 18 years. Only, Bliar, Cameron and May were sensible enough to conduct the replacement in a far more subtle and managed way than Merkels chaotic invitation.

Hard to say. I would certainly agree housing (and weather) are the two biggest factors when it comes to Brits emigrating. Indeed, the highest net emigration figure for British nationals was 2006 (124,000 left) when both the housing bubble and sterling were at peaks, allowing Brits to sell up, realize a high price, and buy a nicer lifestyle elsewhere. The lowest point was in 1994 when the housing market was at a low and just 16,000 emigrated. Typical net emigration of British nationals is around 60k a year. However, the one thing that really irks Brits are property taxes. They'll pay through the nose for fuel and tobacco. (though most just evade taxes on the latter), but get between them and their houses, and they'll get mad. Pretty much the only time the middle class 'rioted' was in the poll taxes riots when property taxation was due to be changed. Indeed, so scared are the government of touching the subject, they havent dared alter the valuation bands since 1993, despite it punishing many areas in the north, where property values havent even doubled since then, and undertaxing areas like London where values have risen 10 fold. The punitive rates of property taxes on, say a £350,000/$500,000 home in much of the US would put a lot of Brits off. I think you are correct about the disparity in the US. "Mean" average salaries certainly are higher in the US than the UK, but median, thats debatable and often dependent on precise exchange rates at the time. The median UK worker has had significantly higher wages than their US counterpart over the last ten years, and the opposite has been true at other times. If you are highly skilled, then its probably advantageous. If you are average skill or less, there seems to be no yes or no answer. The US median personal income for 2016 was somewhere between $27,500 to $29,999. A precise "50th percentile" figure is not given, but I guess it would be a little under $29,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#Income_distribution The UK median personal income for 2016 was £22,807.20 (ASHE figures) At the current 1.39 exchange rate that translates to about $31,700, so a little higher in the UK. Though i would imagine for whites only, the figure is higher in the US. A caveat is that those figures are all workers, and actual hours worked is not stated. When 'full time' workers only are considered, that reverses, with US workers getting more than UK workers (again, though, full time is not a precise hourly figure, so who knows) US 2017 4thQ Median full time wages $857 p/w ($44564) https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf UK 2017 1stQ (latest available ASHE figures) Median full time wages £550.4 p/w (£28,620.8) or $39,782.90 @1.39USD/GBP so US is about 10% higher when just full time workers are considered. For me personally, while I do indeed like the idea of a massive american style "McMansion" I think the associated planning that comes with that (ie having to drive 20 miles to go anywhere or do anything) is intolerable. Australia is probably a happy median between US and UK planning. I like being able to walk to the nearest pubs and stores even though I dont live in a town or city. Such a normal thing seems impossible outside of the oldest, biggest cities in the US.

Yes, I do agree with that part. Instead of "one world order" I'd rather "one world disorder". A world of 7 billion 'sovereign men' However, I think it needs to be done carefully, slowly, incrementally, and as peacefully as possible. Its an aspiration that should be viewed over centuries, not something that should be rushed into in one election cycle 'before the other guy gets in'. I believe only Europeans have sufficiently ditched the tribalism to make such a thing possible. If we simply abolished borders now, I think it would be a bloodbath. However, in 150 years time or so, a possible, even desirable scenario.

I wouldnt bet on it. Migration streams are pretty low from Europe to the US. Typically, 2 to 3 times as many Britons emigrate to Australia than the US, its around 8-10,000 a year to the US, 20-30,000 to Australia. Generally what keeps British people out of the US is 1) the belief they WILL get shot! and 2) the cost of healthcare and belief they will be left dying outside a hospital due to their being some loophole in their health insurance. Those Britons who do emigrate tend to go to Florida or California. The weather is too cost in the rest of the country.

Probably the worst guest you've had on in a long time. He starts losing the debate on immigration...suddenly turns to cryptos/bitcoin. Does similar time and time again. Maybe he has the luxury of being a puritanical ideologue. Most of us do not.

hmm, well this study would seem to suggest sickle cell is almost synonymous with 'non-white' although it also includes southern europeans, so maybe not! https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6dba/3dc3f3bf59cdf80db17662b756cf7145235b.pdf Not sure how many greeks, italians, portugese there are resident in france.

what caste is kapur/kapoor please?

Ironically (perhaps?), despite a lot of people objecting to the official, nationwide collection of racial data due to the usual claims of it being 'something they would do in apartheid south africa' or somesuch, i believe it is actually pro-immigrant groups wanting the collection in France, due to suspicions of non-whites being kept out of jobs, under-represented, etc etc. Certainly, after decades of sporadic, patchy 'ethnic monitioring' here in the UK, a large part of the reason for the collection of such comprehensive ethnic/racial data here since the 1990s (UK government now seems to produce racial stats for anything & everything - though oddly they stopped releasing data on births by race of baby 3 years back) is due to constant claims of discrimination by the BME lobby. There are other yardsticks demographers use to go by - potential for sickle cell issues is one i've seen. Not sure how much to read into it. https://bloodyshovel.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/73akbau.png?w=630 Another way to look at the youth demographic would be school/class photos. For comparison. in 2014. the last year available, 65% of babies born in England were 'white, british' & about 75% white overall, white British falling about 1% a year quite consistently, white overall falling quite slowly in recent years due to eastern euro migrants. A similar rate is recorded in the annual schools census, with about 70% of pupils British (87% in 1997) and 76% white overall (89% in 1997) by 2016. Germany also has a similar rate to Englands 35% births of immigrant stock... http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/21/germany-40-percent-migrant-background/...though again, I would imagine at least 10% of those are to white immigrants. Either way, id be surprised if the sickle cell data is synonymous with non-white/western. At now above 40% France would likely be a good 15% ahead of the UK or Germany in losing a white majority, and i just dont see it. Then again, i suppose other factors can be at play. Germany still seems a lot more 'european' than Englandoverall . But then German women have hardly any children. i notice that whenever visiting Germany. . Conversely, while admittedly the very highest TFRs occur in heavily muslim areas of England, some of the next highest are in very white areas. if white french women have a TFR more in common with German than English women, i guess anything is possible.

Of course he can. He can either end debt-money economics, or else force private credit creation up. He could do both tomorrow. Neither solve the underlying problem of money supply running away from productivity, however.

He should definitely be interviewed now. Looks like he has de-fooed his parents. Or maybe his parents de-fooed him.

He's needlessly provocative, unless I have his sense of humour very wrong. He got butthurt over some minor sleight by the amazing atheist & reacted like a petulant child. Very disturbing behaviour.

Yes yes. Lovely voice too. Also Karl Denninger. He can depress us all about how it doesnt matter whatever else Trump does, because his failure to tackle healthcare in the US, the US economy will collapse in about 3 years anyway, & the right will be unelectable for another generation again because of this. Denninger is like Schiff but with actual figures that add up. After Ben Shapiros doubling down with the Michelle Fields 'assault' claim, even after video evidence proved her allegations spurious, why would anyone want a disingenuous chancer like Shapiro on? His rants can be aurally pleasing, but lets not kid ourselves he has any moral stake in this. He's an actor, nothing more. I feel dirty & used after listening to him.

As Steve Keen noted, systemic debt had already surpassed in real terms the 1920s/30s high in 1998 when GS was abolished. Admittedly much of GS was apparently gutted in the preceding 50 years or so, so one has to ask 'what version of glass steagall' Personally, I think "bring back GS" is just a snappy soundbite politicians can point to. The real problem is debt as money. For it to work you have to have a pure capitalist system where all debts that go bad are written off instantly rather than socialized/guaranteed. In a democracy, with special interests, thats probably impossible. Also central banks interpreting 'stable prices' as 2% debasement every year is problematic. Stable prices are intuitively sensible. Its why virtually all central banks ostensibly start off with that as their mandate. It confers no bias to either debtors or creditors, and allows interest rates to act as a transparent measure of risk, their original and true purpose, rather than as a hedge against inflation, which governments seem to think it should be.

The problem, IMO, is democracy is not about individuals. Its about groups. Politicians appeal to identity to form voter blocks. Individuals dont matter in democracies. That never goes away. Given women are afforded privileges by the state far more than men, and yet feminists/misandrists are more vocal than ever, why anyone would believe non-white lobbies will suddenly stop demanding when they are better off than whites is beyond me. Once they have a momentum, the bureaucracy becomes self perpetuating. Having various tribes in a democracy is a dangerous thing IMO. Then again, authoritarian dictatorships (genghis khan, USSR,) might minimize tribal issues, but replace them with other ones.