Ethnic Minorities to Make Up One Third of the Population by 2050

by Editor | May 6, 2014 4:02 am

ETHNIC MINORITIES MAKE UP ONE THIRD OF THE POPULATION BY 2050 – The issues of immigration and the growing fear that ethnic minorities will make up or need take over an indigenous population at some point in the UK continues to create even deeper divides.

Today in the Daily Mail it has released figures that show:

¤  Ethnic minorities could make up one third of the UK population by 2050.

¤  One in four children under the age of ten is already from a minority group.

¤  14% of the UK population are from ethnic minorities and that this figure continues to grow.

For many this will be of deep concern as the continue to feel that society in UK is being systematically take over, however that is rather a simplistic ideology and is without question intrinsic of the traits of a deeply divided and racist nation.

Watch the video of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., below carefully; yes many people are fully aware of his ‘I have a dream’ speech but few in our view have ever truly understood it.

It is of course about dispelling the myth that we are somehow fundamentally different and that the only visible difference is the colour of a person’s skin, which should never be an issued in this day and age.

The true importance of his message is of course to determine the content of a person’s character and in modern times this really comes down to three intrinsic elements; those being culture, religion and above all respect.

We are of course all unique in our own way, we all have dreams and aspirations and most would like to see our children grow up in a society where issues of cultural and religious beliefs and ideologies do not put any individual or group at risk from persecution, violence or indeed loss of life.

The issues faced in Britain is therefore nothing to do with the colour of a person’s skin but rather cultural and religious beliefs and what is truly disturbing is the growing minority that wants to impose both on an entire nation or see it destroyed.

Our view remains firm; as long as we allow religious and cultural ideology to be used as a weapon of compliance or persecution then the UK, as with all other countries across the western hemisphere, will continue to see greater divides until our basic instincts for survival kicks in and at such a point results in all out conflict.

Dr. King talks of the ‘content of character’ in which what you do defines you and how it ultimately impacts on those around you; the law of Tort (Negligence) aptly describes this in the ‘Neighbour Test’ derived from Donoghue V. Stephenson 1932, in which Lord Atkin delcarded…

Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.” Lord Atkin

It is therefore clear, under law, that we all have a duty of care towards one another, but clearly the ‘content of a person’s character’ is played out differently in that there are some who believe that a duty of care can be dismissed by the overriding beliefs of culture and more importantly their religion.

This very trait leads us to the conclusion that not only does religion divide a nation it is wholly insidious and evil in its make up for it attempts to give those perpetrating it some type of validity to persecute those who refuse to comply.

Let’s take two people out of British society; consider Sir Richard Branson, an entrepreneur and philanthropist, a man who has created jobs and intends to leave the bulk of his wealth for the betterment of mankind upon his death.

Now take Anjem Choudary, a British born Muslim.  The colour of his skin makes not an ounce of difference but his ideology is not one of creation but rather destruction and he’ll perpetrate such under the single ideology that a higher being commands it.

It has been reported that Sir Richard Branson is a Christian and we would bet all the money in the Bank of England that if his religious beliefs were berated and even vilified it wouldn’t cause him to stand up and call for the deaths of those who dare criticise his beliefs.

In direct contrast, with Anjem Choudary being subjected to very same level of criticism against Islam will of course manifest itself into a fatwa; yes Anjem Choudary, like so many others, refuse to allow his so-called religion of peace to face any type of criticism and will therefore call upon his community of followers to hunt down and murder all those who dare criticise what he believes in.

We can now clearly see that the colour of his skin is irrelevant but the content of his character clearly declares who he is and what he stands for and this is the fundamental problem the UK faces.

We continuously talk of tolerance but the likes of Anjem Choudary have no interest in tolerance but rather only compliance and if that means making a population compliance through the use of violence and fear then he will of course use such in order to achieve his goals.

We should not be afraid of a multicultural Britain but rather a Britain that is mulit-religious and especially when that religion refuses to concede to any open debate and is therefore wholly intolerant.

The choice is clear, in that such intolerance must be removed, failing to do so will of course eventually erupt into violence and whilst this Government continues to call on the British people for tolerance of a religion that is inexplicably intolerant they are in fact failing in their ‘duty of care’ towards the majority of the population and with it the UK’s ability to ever create a multicultural society that is anywhere near cohesive.

Source URL: