Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[Mostrov]

Cheer up, it will be alright, soon most of the people in the education system won't be western anyway (33% being minorities as of 2018).

>> minorities aren't Westerners

Not even trying to hide your racism, I see.

Considering, that unlike America, dear cousin, there is an indigenous population which has yet to be genocided in the quest for manifest destiny and given many of said minorities don't consider themselves to be British whatsoever, its hardly a result of prejudice as it is of unfiltered fact.

[Conserative Morality]

Considering, that unlike America, dear cousin, there is an indigenous population which has yet to be genocided in the quest for manifest destiny

The Welsh want a word.

and given many of said minorities don't consider themselves to be British whatsoever, its hardly a result of prejudice as it is of unfiltered fact.

75% of minorities feel themselves to be British. 82% of white folk think themselves British.

JESUS CHRIST SHUT THE DOORS THE CULTURAL DIVIDE WILL LITERALLY OBLITERATE YOUR CULTURE

[Slongs]

JESUS CHRIST SHUT THE DOORS THE CULTURAL DIVIDE WILL LITERALLY OBLITERATE YOUR CULTURE

They just need some more freedoms from the US and A

[Totally Not OEP]

[Mostrov]

Considering, that unlike America, dear cousin, there is an indigenous population which has yet to be genocided in the quest for manifest destiny

The Welsh want a word.

and given many of said minorities don't consider themselves to be British whatsoever, its hardly a result of prejudice as it is of unfiltered fact.

75% of minorities feel themselves to be British. 82% of white folk think themselves British.

JESUS CHRIST SHUT THE DOORS THE CULTURAL DIVIDE WILL LITERALLY OBLITERATE YOUR CULTURE

The genetics of the population of England, and the British Isles more generally, descend from the neolithic and bronze-age settlers, with substantial continuity for the last several thousand years, it was the language that changed; not its people.

The difference, is that unlike the white indigenous population, who are British, at least a quarter regard themselves as not—this doesn't take into account the difference in age, the percentage is higher for older than is younger. The point which seems to escape you is that a quarter of immigrants still regard themselves as foreign to the state they live in, and especially given the insularity of certain ethnic communities this is certain to be a far more granular than that survey alone gives. This is also based on personal experience, which you, no doubt, lack.

EDIT: i.e. The black population is relatively well integrated in terms of self-identity, whereas Pakistani Muslims are substantially less so. Now the question to you is which of the two has a higher birth rate in modern Britain?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

(Image)

Image is broken for me.

[Conserative Morality]

The genetics of the population of England, and the British Isles more generally, descend from the neolithic and bronze-age settlers, with substantial continuity for the last several thousand years, it was the language that changed; not its people.

Early studies by Cavalli-Sforza used polymorphisms from proteins found within human blood (such as the ABO blood groups, Rhesus blood antigens, HLA loci, immunoglobulins, G6PD isoenzymes, amongst others).[16] One of the lasting proposals of this study with regards to Europe is that within most of the continent, the majority of genetic diversity may best be explained by immigration coming from the southeast towards the northwest or in other words from the Middle East towards Britain and Ireland.

Did you expect me not to read what you sourced, or...?

The difference, is that unlike the white indigenous population, who are British, at least a quarter regard themselves as not—this doesn't take into account the difference in age, the percentage is higher for older than is younger.

Source? Because the Beeb link you provided only spoke about English identity being stronger for the older rather than the younger.

The point which seems to escape you is that a quarter of immigrants still regard themselves as foreign to the state they live in, and especially given the insularity of certain ethnic communities this is certain to be a far more granular than that survey alone gives.

And one-fifth of white folk apparently regard themselves as foreign to the state they live in, but that's okay, white is alright. =^)

This is also based on personal experience, which you, no doubt, lack.

Oh yes, no doubt. I have plenty of experience, however, with garden-variety racists who say stupid shit like this.

[Totally Not OEP]

Image is broken for me.

Should be fixed now.

[Mostrov]

To be a Westerner, one must invariably be a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Anything else is barbaric and stinks of popery.

Its a well known fact that the further one is from Calais the more one's foreign (and hence non-white) you become. Even the Scandinavians are partially mixed with Asiatic natives, and the Germans with the peoples of the Hunnic steppes. Only God's Chosen People can truly be counted as white.

[Duhon]

Working in corporate America has taught me that things would be best if people like Mitt Romney and Donald Rumsfeld were in charge.

ok
ok
what literal lol
i mean
wut

[Duhon]

To be a Westerner, one must invariably be a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Anything else is barbaric and stinks of popery.

Its a well known fact that the further one is from Calais the more one's foreign (and hence non-white) you become. Even the Scandinavians are partially mixed with Asiatic natives, and the Germans with the peoples of the Hunnic steppes. Only God's Chosen People can truly be counted as white.

oh dat
dat passive aggressive tribalist chestthumping tho

[Mostrov]

The genetics of the population of England, and the British Isles more generally, descend from the neolithic and bronze-age settlers, with substantial continuity for the last several thousand years, it was the language that changed; not its people.

Early studies by Cavalli-Sforza used polymorphisms from proteins found within human blood (such as the ABO blood groups, Rhesus blood antigens, HLA loci, immunoglobulins, G6PD isoenzymes, amongst others).[16] One of the lasting proposals of this study with regards to Europe is that within most of the continent, the majority of genetic diversity may best be explained by immigration coming from the southeast towards the northwest or in other words from the Middle East towards Britain and Ireland.

Did you expect me not to read what you sourced, or...?

The difference, is that unlike the white indigenous population, who are British, at least a quarter regard themselves as not—this doesn't take into account the difference in age, the percentage is higher for older than is younger.

Source? Because the Beeb link you provided only spoke about English identity being stronger for the older rather than the younger.

The point which seems to escape you is that a quarter of immigrants still regard themselves as foreign to the state they live in, and especially given the insularity of certain ethnic communities this is certain to be a far more granular than that survey alone gives.

And one-fifth of white folk apparently regard themselves as foreign to the state they live in, but that's okay, white is alright. =^)

This is also based on personal experience, which you, no doubt, lack.

Oh yes, no doubt. I have plenty of experience, however, with garden-variety racists who say stupid shit like this.

Most Europeans descend from Bronze-age immigrants which isn't particularly controversial, but irrelevant as it long precedes the Roman invasion of 55 B.C., the first recorded history of the isles, and so even the knowledge of the 'Welsh' or celtic people at all.

You seemed to miss the distinction that the article was making between a national (British) and ethnic identity (English), Britain is one of the few non-nationstates of Europe, so there will be some intersection between the two groups; of course this doesn't mention the white-non British or non-English (mostly European immigrants). This distinction was seen lacking in ethnic minorities, who mainly felt themselves to be British. I was going to reply with a better source, but I used the first result from google, hoping I could edit in a better one post-fact, which I can now provide.

[Conserative Morality]

Most Europeans descend from Bronze-age immigrants which isn't particularly controversial, but irrelevant as it long precedes the Roman invasion of 55 B.C., the first recorded history of the isles, and so even the knowledge of the 'Welsh' or celtic people at all.

That's actually not at all what your source says, but I get it, you don't want to admit you're wrong, or read anything, or accept facts. It's okay. Much of your kind dislikes such things.

You seemed to miss the distinction that the article was making between a national (British) and ethnic identity (English), Britain is one of the few non-nationstates of Europe, so there will be some intersection between the two groups; of course this doesn't mention the white-non British or non-English (mostly European immigrants). This distinction was seen lacking in ethnic minorities, who mainly felt themselves to be British. I was going to reply with a better source, but I used the first result from google, hoping I could edit in a better one post-fact, which I can now provide.

Literally doesn't address what you claim it's addressing. Hilarious, if it wasn't so sad.

[Totally Not OEP]

Most Europeans descend from Bronze-age immigrants which isn't particularly controversial, but irrelevant as it long precedes the Roman invasion of 55 B.C., the first recorded history of the isles, and so even the knowledge of the 'Welsh' or celtic people at all.

That's actually not at all what your source says, but I get it, you don't want to admit you're wrong, or read anything, or accept facts. It's okay. Much of your kind dislikes such things.

You seemed to miss the distinction that the article was making between a national (British) and ethnic identity (English), Britain is one of the few non-nationstates of Europe, so there will be some intersection between the two groups; of course this doesn't mention the white-non British or non-English (mostly European immigrants). This distinction was seen lacking in ethnic minorities, who mainly felt themselves to be British. I was going to reply with a better source, but I used the first result from google, hoping I could edit in a better one post-fact, which I can now provide.

Literally doesn't address what you claim it's addressing. Hilarious, if it wasn't so sad.

You know CM got his ass handed to him when he stops actually responding in anything more than ad hominems.

[Mostrov]

Most Europeans descend from Bronze-age immigrants which isn't particularly controversial, but irrelevant as it long precedes the Roman invasion of 55 B.C., the first recorded history of the isles, and so even the knowledge of the 'Welsh' or celtic people at all.

That's actually not at all what your source says, but I get it, you don't want to admit you're wrong, or read anything, or accept facts. It's okay. Much of your kind dislikes such things.

Oppenheimer, based on the Weale and Capelli studies, proposed that none of the invasions since the Romans have had a significant impact on the gene pool of the British Isles, and that the inhabitants from prehistoric times belong to an Iberian genetic grouping. He says that most people in Britain and Ireland are genetically similar to the Basque people of northern Spain and southwestern France, from 90% in Wales to 66% in East Anglia.[21] Oppenheimer suggests that the division between the West and the East of England is not due to the Anglo-Saxon invasion but originates with two main routes of genetic flow – one up the Atlantic coast, the other from neighbouring areas of Continental Europe – which occurred just after the Last Glacial Maximum.[22] He reports works on linguistics by Forster and Toth which suggest that the Indo-European languages began to fragment some 10,000 years ago, at the end of the last Ice Age. He claims that the Celtic languages split from Indo-European far earlier than the date generally asserted by most researchers of Indo-European linguistics, some 6000 years ago.[23] He claims that the English language split from the other Germanic languages before the Roman period, and became the English that was spoken by the Belgae tribes of what is now southern and eastern England, northeastern France, and Belgium prior to their conquest by the Romans, and long before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons.[24]

Bryan Sykes, a former geneticist at Oxford University, came to fairly similar conclusions as Oppenheimer, which he set forth in his 2006 book called Blood of the Isles: Exploring the Genetic Roots of our Tribal History, published in the United States and Canada as Saxons, Vikings and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland.[citation needed] In 2012, from a highly enlarged whole-genome mitochondrial database published, the authors concluded that the most archaic maternal mtDNA lineages in Europe came from a Middle Eastern migration into Europe during the Late Glacial period, ~19–12 thousand years ago and not as late as the Neolithic as was previously proposed.[25] They argued that this population came from a contracted European population refugium on the Anatolian Plateau which spread to three refugia, Franco-Cantabria, the Italian Peninsula and the East European Plain. From these three areas the lineages would then have repopulated Europe.

The work of Sykes and Oppenheimer regarding the British has recently been seriously challenged. More recent developments in genetic research demonstrate that R1b haplogroups came from the Steppe invaders from the east, rather than from Iberia or France. [6]. David Reich's Harvard laboratory found that over 90% of the British Neolithic population was overturned by the Bell Beaker People from the Lower Rhine, who had little genetic relation to the Iberian Bell Beaker people or South Europeans [6]. Modern autosomal genetic clustering is testament to this fact, as the British and Irish cluster genetically very closely with other North European populations, rather than Iberians, Galicians, Basques or those from the south of France. [26]

Invaders of Steppe origin brought R1b in significant proportions to the Iberian peninsula replacing 100% of Y-DNA lineages but only 40% of their total DNA . This in stark contrast to the 90% autosomal turnover in the British Isles. [27] There is therefore significant haplogroup similarity between these populations, which led to early scholars proposing a Basque origin for the British, although there is little whole genome autosomal similarity.

[...]

The Capelli study, with higher sample numbers, gave much lower frequencies of "Germanic" genetic markers in England than did Weale. They describe such markers as typically ranging between 20% and 40%, with York forming an outlier at 60%. Most of Scotland showed a very similar genetic composition to England.

I in fact read that article quite carefully: the 'late arrival' of the Bell Beaker people is from 2500-1800 BC, well before any mention of the Welsh in history. It also states the continuity, rather than a displacement of Celtic peoples.

Literally doesn't address what you claim it's addressing. Hilarious, if it wasn't so sad.

Scroll down to §7ff.

If I wanted to be vicious I would point out I don't have all day to waste on a forum talking with someone, with nothing better to do with themselves than make over 70,000 posts entirely devoid of content, and I presume a similar lack of accomplishment outside of attempting—and failing at—pseudo-intelligent put-downs on the internet of all places counts for much, and who apparently is unable to read to the bottom of a page.

[Conserative Morality]

Oppenheimer, based on the Weale and Capelli studies, proposed that none of the invasions since the Romans have had a significant impact on the gene pool of the British Isles, and that the inhabitants from prehistoric times belong to an Iberian genetic grouping. He says that most people in Britain and Ireland are genetically similar to the Basque people of northern Spain and southwestern France, from 90% in Wales to 66% in East Anglia.[21] Oppenheimer suggests that the division between the West and the East of England is not due to the Anglo-Saxon invasion but originates with two main routes of genetic flow – one up the Atlantic coast, the other from neighbouring areas of Continental Europe – which occurred just after the Last Glacial Maximum.[22] He reports works on linguistics by Forster and Toth which suggest that the Indo-European languages began to fragment some 10,000 years ago, at the end of the last Ice Age. He claims that the Celtic languages split from Indo-European far earlier than the date generally asserted by most researchers of Indo-European linguistics, some 6000 years ago.[23] He claims that the English language split from the other Germanic languages before the Roman period, and became the English that was spoken by the Belgae tribes of what is now southern and eastern England, northeastern France, and Belgium prior to their conquest by the Romans, and long before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons.[24]

Bryan Sykes, a former geneticist at Oxford University, came to fairly similar conclusions as Oppenheimer, which he set forth in his 2006 book called Blood of the Isles: Exploring the Genetic Roots of our Tribal History, published in the United States and Canada as Saxons, Vikings and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland.[citation needed] In 2012, from a highly enlarged whole-genome mitochondrial database published, the authors concluded that the most archaic maternal mtDNA lineages in Europe came from a Middle Eastern migration into Europe during the Late Glacial period, ~19–12 thousand years ago and not as late as the Neolithic as was previously proposed.[25] They argued that this population came from a contracted European population refugium on the Anatolian Plateau which spread to three refugia, Franco-Cantabria, the Italian Peninsula and the East European Plain. From these three areas the lineages would then have repopulated Europe.

The work of Sykes and Oppenheimer regarding the British has recently been seriously challenged. More recent developments in genetic research demonstrate that R1b haplogroups came from the Steppe invaders from the east, rather than from Iberia or France. [6]. David Reich's Harvard laboratory found that over 90% of the British Neolithic population was overturned by the Bell Beaker People from the Lower Rhine, who had little genetic relation to the Iberian Bell Beaker people or South Europeans [6]. Modern autosomal genetic clustering is testament to this fact, as the British and Irish cluster genetically very closely with other North European populations, rather than Iberians, Galicians, Basques or those from the south of France. [26]

Invaders of Steppe origin brought R1b in significant proportions to the Iberian peninsula replacing 100% of Y-DNA lineages but only 40% of their total DNA . This in stark contrast to the 90% autosomal turnover in the British Isles. [27] There is therefore significant haplogroup similarity between these populations, which led to early scholars proposing a Basque origin for the British, although there is little whole genome autosomal similarity.

[...]

The Capelli study, with higher sample numbers, gave much lower frequencies of "Germanic" genetic markers in England than did Weale. They describe such markers as typically ranging between 20% and 40%, with York forming an outlier at 60%. Most of Scotland showed a very similar genetic composition to England.

I in fact read that article quite carefully: the 'late arrival' of the Bell Beaker people is from 2500-1800 BC, well before any mention of the Welsh in history. It also states the continuity, rather than a displacement of Celtic peoples.

1. That wasn't the section you cited.

2. As your own quoted excerpt states

The work of Sykes and Oppenheimer regarding the British has recently been seriously challenged. More recent developments in genetic research demonstrate that R1b haplogroups came from the Steppe invaders from the east, rather than from Iberia or France. [6]. David Reich's Harvard laboratory found that over 90% of the British Neolithic population was overturned by the Bell Beaker People from the Lower Rhine, who had little genetic relation to the Iberian Bell Beaker people or South Europeans [6]. Modern autosomal genetic clustering is testament to this fact, as the British and Irish cluster genetically very closely with other North European populations, rather than Iberians, Galicians, Basques or those from the south of France. [26]

And from directly after in your source

Another subject in the literature which has been widely discussed is whether genetics can show signs of Germanic invasions, particularly in England. In a widely cited article, through DNA testing, Weale et al. (2002) argued that the Y DNA data showed signs of a mass Anglo-Saxon immigration from the European continent, affecting up to 100% of the male genepool in Central England. The signatures of Germanic influx to England is now widely accepted and has been shown in other studies, such as Capelli et al. 2003. The Capelli study, with higher sample numbers, gave much lower frequencies of "Germanic" genetic markers in England than did Weale. They describe such markers as typically ranging between 20% and 40%, with York forming an outlier at 60%. Most of Scotland showed a very similar genetic composition to England. North German/Danish genetic frequencies were indistinguishable, thus precluding any ability to distinguish between the genetic influence of the Anglo-Saxon source populations and the later, and better documented, influx of Danish Vikings.[28]

Jesus Christ. Are you even trying?

Scroll down to §7ff.

If I wanted to be vicious I would point out I don't have all day to waste on a forum talking with someone, with nothing better to do with themselves than make over 70,000 posts entirely devoid of content, and I presume a similar lack of accomplishment outside of attempting—and failing at—pseudo-intelligent put-downs on the internet of all places counts for much, and who apparently is unable to read to the bottom of a page.

7. National identity in England and Wales
The 2011 Census introduced a question on national identity for the first time. This was due to an increased interest in 'national’ consciousness and demand from people to acknowledge their national identity. National identity is multi-dimensional, so the 2011 Census respondents were allowed to tick more than one national identity. 91.0 per cent of the population identified with at least one UK national identity (English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, and British).

English identity (either on its own or combined with other identities) was the most common identity respondents chose to associate with, at 37.6 million people (67.1 per cent). English as a sole identity (not combined with other identities), was chosen by 32.4 million people (57.7 per cent).

British identity (either on its own or combined with other identities) was a common identity chosen by 16.3 million people (29.1 per cent). 10.7 million people (19.1 per cent) associated themselves with a British identity only.

Welsh identity (either on its own or combined with other identities) was chosen by 2.4 million people (4.3 per cent). 2 million people (3.7 per cent) associated themselves with a Welsh only identity.

A small percentage of people in England and Wales associated themselves with a Scottish or Northern Irish identity (1.0 per cent and 0.3 per cent respectively). 5.5 million people (9.8 per cent) said they had a national identity which was classed as ‘Other’.

Section 7 says nothing supporting your claims and furthermore contradicts your first source rather drastically. Aryan literacy at its finest. Tell me, are you genuinely not understanding your sources, or are you just making random citations to waste time and make it look like you know what you're talking about when in reality you can't even find the barest scrap to back your points up?

[Novus America]

To defeat the Bolsheviks, the Entente would've had to forgive Germany of all grievances and then present a united front for a literal conquest of the Russian Empire.

Was not going to happen.

No, they didn't. Yudenich almost took Petrograd, and Denikin almost took Moscow. Yudenich was weakened by Pavel Bermondt-Avalov whereas Denikin was weakened by Bat'ko. If either offensive had greater support in the form of Allied troops on the ground, it's completely conceivable that they could have denied the Bolsheviks two major industrial, transport and population centers, while also striking a major blow to Bolshevik morale and legitimacy.

It would have been much easier for the Germans to get troops there, especially Petrograd though.
Plus the Germans were keeping the Bolsheviks out of Ukraine and Belarus.

[Totally Not OEP]

In July of 1918, the Kaiser was presented with two potential policy directives:

1) The first, presented by the Foreign Office, recommended continued cooperation with the Bolsheviks until the situation on the Western Front was decided. Obviously, this made a lot of sense as the Second Battle of the Marne was being waged.
2) The second, from OHL, recommended deploying troops to destroy the Bolshevik regime in Russia. At this time, the Germans retained several B and C-class divisions in the East, guarding the gains from Brest-Litovsk and several divisions could plausibly be spared to do this operation. Petrograd and Moscow both were a few days away from German positions, with the only Red forces available to oppose them being scant few Red Latvian riflemen. As combat in February had showed, the Germans could (and did at that time) mop the floor with the Bolsheviks.

Unfortunately for the Russian people and the world at large, Kaiser Wilhelm tended to select the policy first presented to him. As history would have it, as noted, the Foreign Office's proposal was the first shown to him. Had it been the other way around, I have no doubt the Kaiserreich would've crushed Communism in its cradle.

[Mostrov]

Firstly, please don't make a wall of quotes its unsightly and doesn't respond to any points coherently, infact I can't work out what exactly you are even disputing. You also seem to be unaware of sarcasm, or that of pushing the envelope, my original comment was in relation to the demise of western civilization being related to whether Mozart was taught in schools or not, something which is, on its face, rather absurd. I don't particularly care how brown someone is and you've rather naively assumed something off a rather cavalier statement, good for you.

I initially misquoted the Section titled Early studies of protein polymorphisms in modern populations when I meant to quote the following paragraph: Y chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA from modern populations, as I am doing this side-by-side with other activities. My initial contention was that most of the genetic population has remained unchanged from the neolithic population—this is why there is genetic continuity between most of western Europe—, and if I mistakenly didn't mention the debate about whether the Saxons had affected this (and even then there is debate as to the means how they did so, be it through mass immigration or through elite diffusion) then mea culpa, yet in a sense is irrelevant because Y-DNA being only part of what is used in population genetics, the X-Chromosomes and mDNA of their mothers is also a portion, which has remained constant and forms quite discrete populations. Even if we are to ignore the 'female' DNA for the moment, there is a continuum in R1b y-chromosomes across the British isles, it isn't discretely associated with the Welsh, simply statistically more likely to be: which if you were familiar with statistical methods and all that, simply is the result of populations coexisting over time. So my intial statement was correct that there was genetic continuity from the neolithic onwards: the original post-glacial settlers who were mesolithic were replaced by them. If you agree with that statement we have been talking in circles, which given you have scarcely written anything I think likely the case.

I have nothing to add if you cannot interpret the fact that 1 in 10 people living in the country don't believe themselves to be British, and that this (which can be seen in their little graphs) can be made out to correlate with immigrant communities directly: areas with greater immigrant communities feel less British (or English) and vice-versa. It makes no point on the fact that there is a much larger gulf in demography between the young and the old, that proportionally the older the population the more English or British it feels, and the younger the less so. Yes, I concede that there is a sense of Britishness among immigrants which has replaced older senses of ethnicity, and supersedes local identity be it English, Scottish or Welsh, but there is also a segment which rejects that entirely, and with simple demographic projection that segment is likely to increase and it grows among the young proportionally greater than the old—this fits with who I have met in the community, older immigrants are less likely to take radical positions against the country they live in.
I could prove this formally, but I can't recall the codes for formal logic operators and copying them would be very onerous.
But this neglects the initial point, if it wasn't actually a matter of importance, then why the outcry about home-grown terrorists? People who seek to attack the rest of the community are by definition at odds with it, and the existence of communities in the country that nourish this proves this to be an important matter: the considerable resources the government pours into fighting this problem shows that at many levels (government, media, the general population via voting) it is considered somewhat of a concern.

Luckily for you I happen to be in a rather bored mood today.

[Conserative Morality]

Firstly, please don't make a wall of quotes its unsightly and doesn't respond to any points coherently, infact I can't work out what exactly you are even disputing. You also seem to be unaware of sarcasm, or that of pushing the envelope, my original comment was in relation to the demise of western civilization being related to whether Mozart was taught in schools or not, something which is, on its face, rather absurd

"Ha ha, I was only joking."

Cheer up, it will be alright, soon most of the people in the education system won't be western anyway (33% being minorities as of 2018).

Considering, that unlike America, dear cousin, there is an indigenous population which has yet to be genocided in the quest for manifest destiny and given many of said minorities don't consider themselves to be British whatsoever, its hardly a result of prejudice as it is of unfiltered fact.

The genetics of the population of England, and the British Isles more generally, descend from the neolithic and bronze-age settlers, with substantial continuity for the last several thousand years, it was the language that changed; not its people.

The difference, is that unlike the white indigenous population, who are British, at least a quarter regard themselves as not—this doesn't take into account the difference in age, the percentage is higher for older than is younger. The point which seems to escape you is that a quarter of immigrants still regard themselves as foreign to the state they live in, and especially given the insularity of certain ethnic communities this is certain to be a far more granular than that survey alone gives. This is also based on personal experience, which you, no doubt, lack.

EDIT: i.e. The black population is relatively well integrated in terms of self-identity, whereas Pakistani Muslims are substantially less so. Now the question to you is which of the two has a higher birth rate in modern Britain?

10/10

The rest of your post is just goalpost shifting using concerns that were never previously brought up and absurd assumptions, some of which contradict your previously provided sources. But w/e, I am sure your great championing of the White British Race will bear fruits.

[Fahran]

(Image)

No.

[West Leas Oros 2]

(Image)

This bothers me from a geographical standpoint

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

(Image)

I don't really know what I'm supposed to be looking at.

[North German Realm]

(Image)

This bothers me from a geographical standpoint

I'm just not sure why Ireland is included in a propaganda poster so clearly ethnic based, to be honest. Then again, Germans weren't that opposed to Irish independence.

[Kowani]

(Image)

I don't really know what I'm supposed to be looking at.

Ethnic propaganda.