David Craig, on March 18th, 2015Sometimes it can be both entertaining and instructive to play around with the kind of numbers that most mainstream media wouldn’t touch with a cryogenically-sterilised bargepole.
For example, we could try to project how many M*sl*ms there will be in the UK and some European countries by the end of this century.
We know two things:
1. The indigenous populations of the UK and most European countries are declining due to low birth rates
2. M*sl*m populations are increasing. For example,�There were 1.6 million Muslims in England and Wales in 2001, or 3 per cent of the population, according to the census. By 2011 the Muslim population had grown to 2.7 million people or 4.8 per cent of the population. That’s an increase of 68% in just 10 years. For Europe overall, the number of M*sl*ms seems to double about every 27 years due to higher birth rates, bringing in family members and floods of refugees from collapsing M*sl*m countries, often following Blair’s and Cameron’s attempts to topple hard-line dictators in order to “spread democracy”.
If we assume, to make things simple, that non-M*sl*m populations stay flat and M*sl*m populations continue to double every 27 years or so, then this is how the populations of three large European countries will change between now and the end of this century (click to see more clearly)
And here are three smaller countries:
So, M*sl*ms will not quite be in a majority. Mostly they will make up just over a third of the population. But given that the indigenous populations will vote for different political parties while M*sl*ms will all tend to vote for the same parties, M*sl*ms may be very close to taking control of most European countries by the end of this century.
Of course, many things can change before then. For example, birth rates amongst M*sl*m communities might decline as they become more integrated with the countries they move to. And action might be taken to lower immigration.
But whatever happens, we can expect a huge growth in Europe’s M*sl*m population. None of us will be around to see all of this massive demographic change. But our grandchildren will. And they may find themselves living in a largely *sl*mic country and continent.
As for David Cameron’s dream of Britain having a M*sl*m PM – well, it probably won’t be in his lifetime. But it will be very likely in his grandchildren’s lifetimes. So they’ll be able to give thanks to their grandfather for allowing this to happen.
Interesting times ahead!
Category: 
I do not accept this concept David…
The defining characteristic is not an adherence to Islam, it is poverty…
Poor people tend to breed like rabbits in their own environment, simply because they tend to lose children in early years, or in childbirth… When they are given the chance to improve themselves they take it like a shot, but this first generation tend to carry on with the same or similar birthrate. It follows that since conditions tend to be so much better, that more children survive, so it looks like these people have higher birthrates…
Check out the same stats for groups that have been here longer, I am willing to bet that the Irish, the West Indians, the Huguenots and the whateverelses, will have more surviving children at the first generation, and then it reverts to the national average.
Mind you, none of that justifies changing our whole civilisation for short term statistical financial gain, of paying for the pensions of our existing “olds”… because it won’t be long before the immigrants qualify for a pension.
Stuff that. Can you find out how one gets a permit to live in Australia or New Zealand as I think that is where the future is.
“The defining characteristic is not an adherence to Islam, it is poverty�”
What a crock of koranimal feces. Your mush brain took the pc/multiculti/DIEversity indoctrination without so much as a burp of common sense.
So you don’t think that being very poor is a bloody good reason for people to look elsewhere to see if they can improve their chances?
I would totally agree that the fact of their (so-called) religion helps to impoverish them, but that was not the point that I was making…
That point being that the breeding thing is more to do with infant/birth/early years death, not much to do with Islam, other than through the religion’s attitude to women.
Oh and there is no need to be abusive, just because you are too thick to see that a good point is being made.
I am not a fan of Islam, I just thought that this piece of David’s did not mention the effect that I have illustrated.
It’s time we stopped child benefit in the UK and taxed those that have more than 2 children. All women that have a third child should be sterilised. This sounds draconian but the alternative is civil war within 30 years. Cameron’s answer to the problem is child benefit for up to three children, they will still out breed us that rate.