Is this the real face of multicultural Britain?

If you looked online or in the newspapers today the British media picked up a story which should strike black and ethnic minorities as strange regarding research by Professor David Coleman, of Oxford University who said that whites would become a minority by 2066 in their own country because of immigration and the migration of thousands of white Britons abroad. The British media always boasts that Britain is a multicultural society and tolerant, so why the obsession with keeping Britain white? Why is this even a news story?

There is something hypocritical about a country which boast about being tolerant and having a successful multicultural society only to publish yearly headlines about the soaring birth rates of non whites and the impending doomsday news stories which tell white readers that Britain will become a non white country in a few decades.

Is this really the sign of a country that has embraced people from other races, cultures and religion? No.

Yet today the British media decided that research by Professor David Coleman, of Oxford University regarding the racial demographic changes which will take place in Britain within the next few decades should be major news. Why?

Professor Coleman said that immigration levels and the number of whites migrating to other countries will mean that whites will be a minority in their own country within the next 50 years.

According to the MailOnline, professor Coleman said, “The transition…would represent an enormous change to national identity – cultural, political, economic and religious.” (Tim Shipman: 18 November)

What is disturbing about the language used by the professor and mainstream British media is that immigrants and all non whites are portrayed as an outside force damaging British identity and culture; but what is more sinister about the usage of language in this report is that the term immigration is used to describe all non whites, even those who are born here.

In the Daily Mail report it says, “…the white British population, defined as English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish-born citizens, would become the minority after about 2066.

Towards the end of the article it says, “The ethnic minority population expanded by almost two million between 2001 and 2007, from 13 per cent to nearly 16 per cent of the total.” From this perspective all non whites are seen as a threat to the white British population, identity and culture.

The Mail report then goes on to state that over half of Britain’s population growth is by immigrants, and that foreign born mothers account for a quarter of births in England and Wales.

This is hostile language cloaked behind research and academia, it is in effect racism at its ugliest. It is the language of racist eugenics which dealt with preserving the white race and white civilisation.

The headlines says it all. The, home of the Daily Mail and Sunday Express reads, “WHITE BRITONS ‘A MINORITY BY 2066“. The Daily Mail online had this more threatening headline, “By 2066, white Britons ‘will be outnumbered’ if immigration continues at current rates“. The Sun headline reads, “White Britons a minority by ’66“. This is enhanced by a side story about German Chancellor Angela Merkel who said that multiculturalism has failed in Germany.

A read of all these articles will send a clear message to all black and minority ethnic communities in Britain. They are not welcome in this country and they are seen as a threat to white Britain.

It is disturbing to say the least that the British media casually reports on stories which the extreme far-right use on a daily basis to defend their white supremacist ideology, and few people bat an eyelid.

Stories such as this reminds black and minority ethnic communities that white extremism is not just the domain of the poor white working classes, but also the professional, well educated white person like professor Coleman; and there are many more just like him who hold these extremist views.

For further research:


17 thought on “Why is the British media obsessed with keeping Britain white?”
  1. Racism is defined by the OED as being:

    “The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Hence: prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those felt to be a threat to one’s cultural or racial integrity or economic well-being; the expression of such prejudice in words or actions.”

    As far as I can deduce from what I have read of Professor Coleman’s report, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that his report infers that white culture is superior, nor does he use ‘white supremacist ideology’- that is deliberate misrepresentation. Take this statement from his research for example:

    “The transition to a ‘majority minority’ population, whenever it happens, would represent an enormous change to national identity – cultural, political, economic and religious.

    “In Britain, judging by the opposition to high immigration reported in opinion polls over recent years, it seems likely that such developments would be unwelcome.”

    In addition to this, this article misrepresents the newspaper coverage of this research. It was also reported, fully and factually, by the Telegraph ( and the Independent (

  2. Byrnsweord,

    If you read my report on Professor Coleman’s research the context is clear. Britain is a country which boasts about its racial tolerance and multiculturalism, yet every year the British media will publish headlines informing whites that they will become a minority in a few decades time.

    This obsession with the birth rates and population of non whites has its roots in white supremacy and the eugenics movement of the twentieth century which was opposed to the mixing of races and the dwindling birth rates of the white population. Therefore you are wrong, professor Coleman’s research goes right back to the heart of scientific and academic racism.

    My report represents his views in the most genuine context from which it originated.

    Note, that in my article I highlight that the professor does not even recognise non whites who are born in this country effectively labelling all non whites as immigrants. A quick glance of the beliefs of white nationalist groups in this country and indeed Europe contains the same concerns that professor Coleman states in his report.

    This is the original definition of racism.

  3. My good man, you present a most conflicted argument.

    Firstly, not all objective demographic studies ‘have their roots’ (an interesting turn of phrase for this debate) in eugenics. Demographers are not Eugenicists, and I’m sure that any Demographer would present a myriad of distinctions between the two, having been offended at the mere notion of bias and partiality in their research.

    Furthermore, the research of Professor Coleman is an objective study of population in this country, based on immigration statistics, opinion polls and other data from respected and verifiable outlets.

    In addition to this: ‘most genuine context from which it originated’? I can see no link to the original article, as you use a second hand source. Conveniently, that is the histrionic Daily Mail. The original article unequivocally states:

    “… most of us realise that migration for work, family, retirement, study and other purposes is normal and desirable in any civilised country.”

    This is hardly a racist overtone, as you can clearly see. It even takes into account the fact that we cannot ‘pride ourselves’ on our race relations record- as it uses the qualifying statement ‘most of us’.

    Professor Coleman goes on to detail not only immigration, but other factors, in what are clearly astonishing figures:

    “As recently as 1998, the ONS projected that the UK population would peak at about 65m in 2051, and then slowly decline. The latest 2008 principal projection, however, expects it to have risen to 77m by 2051, and to 85m by 2083—mostly as a result of immigration. These rises, equivalent to adding the population of the Netherlands by 2050, are unavoidable if recent trends in migration, fertility and survival continue.”

    Surely, demographers have reason to be astounded at the notion that it is somehow beneficial to this nation to add the population of a fellow EU member state on top of the existing population to a nation whose infrastructure is already struggling to cope.

  4. Tweets that mention Why is the British media obsessed with keeping Britain white? -- says:

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Byrnsweord and Byrnsweord, Julius Whacket. Julius Whacket said: Coleman's report "the language of racist Eugenics which dealt with preserving the white race and white civilisation": […]

  5. Do a people who tolerate cultural diversity thereby give up the right to exist?

  6. Byrnsweord,

    There is nothing conflicted about my arguments for those who are willing to do their research. Francis Galton, the cousin of Charles Darwin first coined the term eugenics. This alleged science held the beliefs that only those of a particular class and race should preserve their identity. Other races were seen as inferior and therefore a threat to the ‘master race’ a theory which led to Nazi idelogy. It is from this background that the immigration debate and the British media’s obsession with the birth rates of non whites originated and should be understood.

    Demographers must take into consideration that the immigration debate in Britain is rooted in racism and race ideology. I ask you again for a country which boasts about its tolerance and multiculturalism why is professor Coleman’s research a story? Why is he concerned about the birth rates of non whites? If it was whites that were multiplying would he have the same concerns? I doubt it.

    Secondly, I would hardly call the 1960s migration of Black and Asian people from the former colonies to Britain a “normal and desirable” aspect of migration, considering that non whites were used to fill labour gaps in British industries and unwelcome.

    The tone is racist not only because of the origins of the British and European obsession with non white birth rates, but also because it excludes minority ethnic groups who were born here. I noticed that you have not addressed this.

    If professor Coleman and yourself want an honest debate about immigration I suggest you both look to the roots of why immigrants come here in the first place. For example The Refugee Project is a coalition of refugee communities and organisations working to address the issues that UK foreign investment plays a role in forcing people to flee their countries. Corrupt UK foreign policy is responsible for the poverty in these countries and therefore immigrants who leave these countries leave to seek a better life in the UK.

    Secondly, The Campaign Against Arms Trade (CATT) is a London-based organisation which aims to eradicate the international arms trade. The impact that the arms trade has on conflicts around the world is substantial.

    According to a CAAT report called, ‘Shelling Out: How taxpayers subsidies the arms trade’: “For decades the UK Government has had a policy of promoting arms exports, seemingly at any cost. The result of this policy is that the UK continues to arm repressive regimes around the world. In 2000, the UK licensed military exports to 30 of the 40 most repressive regimes in the world and British weapons are being used in most of the world’s current conflicts.”

    In light of this the entire immigration debate and professor Coleman’s research, as well of your defence of it is a farce. You both leave out the obvious because it inevitably uncovers why Britain has an alleged immigration problem in the first place.

    There are important factors at work here which you clearly will not address. Please do so.

    For those who want a greater understanding of the Eugenics movement read:

    Also read:

  7. There was a serious race riot taking place in Wolverhampton where Blacks and Asians were threatened not go on on the streets.

    Why was there a media black out? It seems that this occurrence is being regular with the economic crisis and Council cuts?

  8. free your mind,

    Could you provide details of what took place and on what day because news events like this needs to be highlighted and exposed to Black and minority ethnic communities? Thanks.

  9. The story regarding the unplanned protest seems to be across socialist websites but not covered by central or local news. There have been quite a few BNP EDL Nazi type marches across Walsall, Wolverhampton and Dudley on a regular basis, the last event took place on Saturday 20 November 2010

    The Links are:

  10. Indian’s to become minority in their own country..Africans to become minority in their own country..Unlikely to happen anytime soon (if ever) but hey, I’m very relaxed about this remote possibly, as I’m sure if it actually happened, Indians and Africans would be as well,..right?

  11. Hi Magoo,

    You raise an interesting perspective in this debate. I agree with you that a particular nation or race which has developed its own unique traditions and culture within their country would want to preserve those traditions and culture. What I do not agree with is the clearly racist approach that the British media chooses to cover extremely volatile issues. Britain has a brutal and bloody history of uprooting entire cultures and traditions in the name of alleged racial and cultural superiority. My article deals with the link between how immigration is debated in the British media and racial eugenics.

    Why should non whites in Britain be blamed for having a healthy belief in large family units which is traditional to their cultures? In a country which claims to be tolerant why is that seen as a threat to the white population? Let us have an honest debate about these issues and like my article suggests you will find that the reason why Britain has a large non white population is because British foreign policy is corrupt to the core and exploits the natural resources of its former colonies. Successive British governments continue to sell arms to repressive regimes around the world, and you wonder why asylum seekers come to these shores? It is not hard to find out.

    Modern Britain was built on exploitation and corruption and continues to be sustained by these methods, and there lies a major reason why many countries around the world cannot develop enough to offer a decent life for their own people.

    British people should be asking questions of their own government instead of predictably venting their anger at the non white population. It is successive British governments that has put white Britons in this predicament, and it is to these people that British people should vent their anger.

  12. Mark Watson.

    I’d Just like to point out and im not being racist about anything but a country’s people have the right to their own thoughts and there is a difference between being racist, and nationalism. Nationalists will fight for their country to protect it from threats such as you could say immigration, thats a problem with the United Kingdom right now and the same could happen here to what happened in Germany between 1929-1933, the population will revolt or most likley vote right wing parties.

    These are just some of the ideas of which comes to my mind when i think of immigration. The parties will use immigration which will most likely catch the minds of the native population.

    I am not racist. I am a nationalist.


    Richard Stevens.

  13. Hi Richard,

    You have raised an interesting perspective regarding nationalism. My question to you is this, does your nationalist beliefs excludes people from other races, cultures and religions? If the answer is yes, then you have been seduced by racist ideology.

    There is nothing wrong with being a nationalist, loving your country and wanting to celebrate your own culture, but a person must at least understand the roots to what they believe. If British people are so easily seduced by their government to vote for right wing political parties then it is most likely that their nationalism has its roots in racist ideology. This is why I pointed towards the historical background of the immigration debate in Britain within my article. The roots of the immigration debate in Britain is similar to what encouraged the rise of Nazism in Germany.

    To understand how the immigration debate in Britain has been manipulated by British governments and British corporations nationalists like yourself must look to why many immigrants come to the UK in the first place. For example, I mentioned earlier that The Refugee Project said that UK foreign investment plays a role in forcing people to flee their countries. Corrupt UK foreign policy is responsible for the poverty in these countries and therefore immigrants who leave these countries leave to seek a better life in the UK.

    I also mentioned The Campaign Against Arms Trade (CATT), a London-based organisation which aims to eradicate the international arms trade. The impact that the arms trade has on conflicts around the world is substantial. British arms helps to prolong conflicts in the very countries where people flee for asylum to the UK.

    It would be also useful to read the following article: In this article I briefly touch on how big companies, along with the British government and media deceive British people on a daily basis, all for personal profit.

    Nationalists like yourself owe it to yourselves to understand the historical and present nature of immigration which has been used as a tool of manipulation to stir up racial animosities among workers whilst big British companies covertly move their operations to India to save money and reap more profit, leaving behind a devasted local British workforce.

    This is a big debate and I hope this discussion continues.

  14. Mark.

    I do understand where you’re coming from as I know that the United Kingdom was once a very large empire and we conquered quite alot of South asian countries, but as a way of saying sorry to all this we invited them over to be westernised, for instance Gandhi was westernised he came over to our country and was educated in law so I believe and he used this to peacefully lift the chains of india.

    I do know alot about this country as I some day want to be a historian at my current age of 15.

    I must confess Mark I do not think the people will not be persuaded to easily but with the rising votes in right wing parties, well who knows?



  15. Hi Richard,

    As a budding historian you will find that Black and Asian people from the former British colonies were invited over by the British government after World War II, when the British economy was in desperate need of manpower following a depleted population of workers as a result of war fatalities. It contradicts your belief that Black and Asians were invited over as a result of British guilt. It was simply economics, nothing more.

    Yes Gandhi was educated in Britain and used his education to help overthrow India’s British rulers, but successive British governments continued to interfere in the politics of their former so called independent colonies by assassinating popular nationalist leaders who threatened British economic interests, and supporting brutal dictators; a strategy that British governments pursue to this very day. (Read Curtis, Mark (2003) Web of deceit: Britain’s Real Role in the World: Vintage.)

    As long as race ideology make people feel special, it will always be difficult to convince them otherwise, but the evidence is there for all to research and draw their own conclusions. It is great that young people like yourself are taking part in debates such as this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *