A major new study has uncovered a troubling fault line in British society, finding that one in six people believe the growth of the Muslim population poses a fundamental threat to UK culture.

Researchers warn that hostile attitudes towards Muslims risk becoming increasingly normalised, even as most Britons continue to support coexistence and reject overt prejudice.

A Sharp Divide Beneath the Surface

The report, produced by the British Muslim Trust and British Future, paints a mixed picture of integration in modern Britain.

While 52% of the public believe Muslims are as British as white non-Muslims, 17% strongly agree that the growth of the Muslim population represents a foundational threat to British culture. Nearly one in five also reject the idea that British-born Muslims are as British as their non-Muslim counterparts.

The findings suggest concerns about identity and belonging remain deeply embedded within parts of the population.

Belonging Endures Despite Growing Anxiety

Despite those tensions, the study found strong levels of attachment among Muslims themselves. Nearly three-quarters said Britain is a good place to be Muslim, while a majority expressed confidence in their place within British society.

Yet many also reported feeling increasingly scrutinised. Researchers found that more than half of Muslims surveyed said they had experienced prejudice linked to their faith during the past year.

The Online World Under Fire

The report identifies social media and online misinformation as key drivers of hostility.

According to researchers, negative narratives are spreading faster and reaching wider audiences than ever before. At the same time, many people have little or no direct contact with Muslims in their daily lives, limiting opportunities to challenge stereotypes through personal relationships.

Generational Gap Emerges

The research also revealed a significant age divide. Older respondents were markedly more likely to view the contribution of Muslims negatively than younger Britons.

Researchers found a strong link between regular interaction with Muslims and more positive attitudes, suggesting familiarity remains one of the most effective antidotes to prejudice.

A Test for Social Cohesion

The study’s authors argue the findings should serve as a warning rather than a prediction. Most Britons support action against anti-Muslim prejudice and believe Muslims and non-Muslims can live successfully alongside one another.

But they caution that if hostile attitudes become mainstream, the consequences could extend beyond politics. Questions of belonging, identity and trust are increasingly becoming central to the debate over Britain’s social cohesion and future direction.

One in six Britons think growth of Muslim population is 'threat to UK culture', study finds

1 hour ago, bannork said:

major new study has uncovered a troubling fault line in British society, finding that one in six people believe the growth of the Muslim population poses a fundamental threat to UK culture.

I reckon the other five in six must be deaf, dumb and blind not to think so.

There's no question that Muslim population growth is an existential threat to humanity, but so is population growth in general.

21 out of 22 nations in Africa that have the highest population growth levels on the planet are Muslim majority nations. That is a huge problem. The world needs fewer babies, not more babies.

13 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

There's no question that Muslim population growth is an existential threat to humanity, but so is population growth in general.

21 out of 22 nations in Africa that have the highest population growth levels on the planet are Muslim majority nations. That is a huge problem. The world needs fewer babies, not more babies.

The West needs more babies to sustain the social welfare state. We should support family planning initiatives in Africa to manage population growth.

5 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

There's no question that Muslim population growth is an existential threat to humanity, but so is population growth in general.

21 out of 22 nations in Africa that have the highest population growth levels on the planet are Muslim majority nations. That is a huge problem. The world needs fewer babies, not more babies.

Babies born in the USA have significantly larger impact on the planet than those born in Africa.

It’s no accident t that the Malthusian argument invariably focuses on the developing world, or more precisely, non white, non Christian populations.

The very people who are not doing most of the environmental damage.

Edited June 16Jun 16 by Chomper Higgot

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Babies born in the USA have significantly larger impact on the planet than those born in Africa.

It’s no accident t that the Malthusian argument invariably focuses on the developing world, or more precisely, non white, non Christian populations.

The very people who are not doing most of the environmental damage.

People in the West/USA cause the most environmental damage ?

Muslims going to the West/USA cause the same amount of enviromental damage .

So, it would be better for the environment if Muslims stayed at home in their own countries

The Online World Under Fire

The report identifies social media and online misinformation as key drivers of hostility.

So it's not the stabbings and the $$Trillions spent on the collective benefits?

Edit: Before someone jumps on me, it's just $$Billions in the UK. But it's $$Trillions around the world. Money that could be put to improving the lives of citizens.

Edited June 16Jun 16 by impulse

1 hour ago, Nick Carter icp said:

People in the West/USA cause the most environmental damage ?

Muslims going to the West/USA cause the same amount of enviromental damage .

So, it would be better for the environment if Muslims stayed at home in their own countries

The same could be said of any other ethnic group going to the U.S..

Which would you give a pass I wonder?!

Are they eating our pets yet?

8 hours ago, bannork said:

A major new study has uncovered a troubling fault line in British society, finding that one in six people believe the growth of the Muslim population poses a fundamental threat to UK culture.

Only one in six?

As with many polls, what people say and what they actually think may be poles apart.

I shall ruminate on this over a pint and a pork pie.

21 minutes ago, BKKBike09 said:

As with many polls, what people say and what they actually think may be poles apart.

It isn't the Poles, it's the Muslims they're after.

(With apologies to Father Ted).

Edited June 16Jun 16 by ballpoint

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Babies born in the USA have significantly larger impact on the planet than those born in Africa.

It’s no accident t that the Malthusian argument invariably focuses on the developing world, or more precisely, non white, non Christian populations.

The very people who are not doing most of the environmental damage.

While there is some absolute truth to what you're saying that does not in any way lesson the impact of dramatically increasing populations around the world. It is my earnest opinion that this planet cannot support more than 8 billion people, and if the population continues to grow the quality of life will diminish for the vast majority of earthlings.

Something must be done to educate illuminate or encourage the poorest of the poor to stop cranking out babies like they are hot brownies from a chocolate factory.

6 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

While there is some absolute truth to what you're saying that does not in any way lesson the impact of dramatically increasing populations around the world. It is my earnest opinion that this planet cannot support more than 8 billion people, and if the population continues to grow the quality of life will diminish for the vast majority of earthlings.

Something must be done to educate illuminate or encourage the poorest of the poor to stop cranking out babies like they are hot brownies from a chocolate factory.

And Musk. The birthrate must be curtailed everywhere.

52% is a good result.

3 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

And Musk. The birthrate must be curtailed everywhere.

52% is a good result.

1.4 births per woman is perfect. It would assure a declining world population, which would be an amazing thing.

2 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

1.4 births per woman is perfect. It would assure a declining world population, which would be an amazing thing.

Stereotypical Boomer - "As long as my pension gets paid I don't give a **** about the next generations"

How boomers were conned into the overpopulation myth — and why it's BS
Boomers (born ~1946–1964 so will all be dead soon) grew up amid peak promotion of the overpopulation narrative:

Roots:
Thomas Malthus (late 1700s) warned population grows exponentially while food linearly → inevitable famine.

Revived in the 1960s–70s by Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb (1968), which predicted mass starvation in the 1970s–80s, and groups like the Club of Rome (Limits to Growth).

Promotion: Media, schools, UN programs, environmental movements, and figures like Ehrlich pushed it hard. Foreign aid often tied to population control (e.g., sterilization campaigns in India, China's one-child policy). It fit post-WWII fears, Cold War resource competition, and rising environmentalism.

Why boomers absorbed it:

Television era, authority trust, visible urban crowding, and genuine successes in reducing child mortality (which temporarily spiked population before fertility naturally fell with development/education/women's rights). It felt intuitive and morally urgent ("save the planet").

Why it's BS:
Empirical failure:
Ehrlich's predictions were spectacularly wrong.

Food production exploded via the Green Revolution (Norman Borlaug et al.), technology, and markets. Resources have generally become more abundant per person as population grew — prices of commodities (adjusted for inflation) trended down over centuries despite billions more people. Human ingenuity expands carrying capacity (Julian Simon's "ultimate resource" thesis).

cato.org

Current reality: Global fertility is already below replacement in many places and falling fast.

UN projections show world population peaking mid-late century then declining.

The bigger long-term risk in developed nations is underpopulation/aging, not over-.

Developing world transitions are also accelerating downward.

en.wikipedia.org

Economic view: Some white people aren't just mouths — they're producers/inventors.

More humans (with good institutions) drive innovation, division of labor, and problem-solving. Density + markets solve scarcity better than scarcity solves itself via fewer people.

Caveats:

Unlimited low-IQ immigration + welfare in high-trust/high-IQ societies can create fiscal and social pressures. But blanket "too many people" is a myth that distracted from governance, technology, and fertility collapse.

---

---

Why the world needs high IQ whites to breed:
Average national IQ correlates with economic performance, innovation, and institutional quality.

Dysgenic fertility (higher fertility among lower-IQ groups, lower among higher-IQ) gradually reduces cognitive capital. This is empirically debated but rests on heritability of IQ (~50-80% in adults) and group differences.

Edited June 16Jun 16 by Tourist2

17 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

While there is some absolute truth to what you're saying that does not in any way lesson the impact of dramatically increasing populations around the world. It is my earnest opinion that this planet cannot support more than 8 billion people, and if the population continues to grow the quality of life will diminish for the vast majority of earthlings.

Something must be done to educate illuminate or encourage the poorest of the poor to stop cranking out babies like they are hot brownies from a chocolate factory.

Quite an analogy there.......

17 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

While there is some absolute truth to what you're saying that does not in any way lesson the impact of dramatically increasing populations around the world. It is my earnest opinion that this planet cannot support more than 8 billion people, and if the population continues to grow the quality of life will diminish for the vast majority of earthlings.

Something must be done to educate illuminate or encourage the poorest of the poor to stop cranking out babies like they are hot brownies from a chocolate factory.

Let’s start with Musk and Johnson.

From the source: "The study by the social integration thinktank British Future and the British Muslim Trust ...". I think this says a lot about this study.

Just go Bradford, Leicester, Tower Hamlets, Bolton etc and see if it has had any adverse effect on British culture. Within 20 years there will be a civil war as we finally reject the loss of our country.

4 hours ago, Tourist2 said:

Stereotypical Boomer - "As long as my pension gets paid I don't give a **** about the next generations"

How boomers were conned into the overpopulation myth — and why it's BS
Boomers (born ~1946–1964 so will all be dead soon) grew up amid peak promotion of the overpopulation narrative:

Roots:
Thomas Malthus (late 1700s) warned population grows exponentially while food linearly → inevitable famine.

Revived in the 1960s–70s by Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb (1968), which predicted mass starvation in the 1970s–80s, and groups like the Club of Rome (Limits to Growth).

Promotion: Media, schools, UN programs, environmental movements, and figures like Ehrlich pushed it hard. Foreign aid often tied to population control (e.g., sterilization campaigns in India, China's one-child policy). It fit post-WWII fears, Cold War resource competition, and rising environmentalism.

Why boomers absorbed it:

Television era, authority trust, visible urban crowding, and genuine successes in reducing child mortality (which temporarily spiked population before fertility naturally fell with development/education/women's rights). It felt intuitive and morally urgent ("save the planet").

Why it's BS:
Empirical failure:
Ehrlich's predictions were spectacularly wrong.

Food production exploded via the Green Revolution (Norman Borlaug et al.), technology, and markets. Resources have generally become more abundant per person as population grew — prices of commodities (adjusted for inflation) trended down over centuries despite billions more people. Human ingenuity expands carrying capacity (Julian Simon's "ultimate resource" thesis).

cato.org

Current reality: Global fertility is already below replacement in many places and falling fast.

UN projections show world population peaking mid-late century then declining.

The bigger long-term risk in developed nations is underpopulation/aging, not over-.

Developing world transitions are also accelerating downward.

en.wikipedia.org

Economic view: Some white people aren't just mouths — they're producers/inventors.

More humans (with good institutions) drive innovation, division of labor, and problem-solving. Density + markets solve scarcity better than scarcity solves itself via fewer people.

Caveats:

Unlimited low-IQ immigration + welfare in high-trust/high-IQ societies can create fiscal and social pressures. But blanket "too many people" is a myth that distracted from governance, technology, and fertility collapse.

---

---

Why the world needs high IQ whites to breed:
Average national IQ correlates with economic performance, innovation, and institutional quality.

Dysgenic fertility (higher fertility among lower-IQ groups, lower among higher-IQ) gradually reduces cognitive capital. This is empirically debated but rests on heritability of IQ (~50-80% in adults) and group differences.

Current reality: Global fertility is already below replacement in many places and falling fast.

UN projections show world population peaking mid-late century then declining.

That's absolutely brilliant stuff and I'm celebrating it everyday of my life. Anyone who doesn't think the quality of life is declining and doesn't think that it has anything to do with a massively expanding population, needs to try living in a huge city for a while.

Stop importing the death cult religion followers to the uk.

And no Muslims should be in any government positions, ever.

There religion will influence what they do in these governmental positions, when push comes to shove.

Stop the rot.

22 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s no accident t that the Malthusian argument invariably focuses on the developing world, or more precisely, non white, non Christian populations.

How long do you think that part of the world will be "developing"? Maybe a few more centuries?

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Let’s start with Musk and Johnson.

What do you mean?

22 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Babies born in the USA have significantly larger impact on the planet than those born in Africa.

At least the United States is capable of feeding its infants without depending on foreign aid.

51 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Current reality: Global fertility is already below replacement in many places and falling fast.

UN projections show world population peaking mid-late century then declining.

That's absolutely brilliant stuff and I'm celebrating it everyday of my life. Anyone who doesn't think the quality of life is declining and doesn't think that it has anything to do with a massively expanding population, needs to try living in a huge city for a while.

The birthrate is not slowing down in the awful continent.

The sooner the west admits we are at war with militant Islam the better.

They are already bold enough to state in the UK,”we are not here to take part,we are here to take over”

How much more bleeding obvious has it to be?

2 hours ago, Mr Awesome said:

At least the United States is capable of feeding its infants without depending on foreign aid.

Which is a long way from being able to feed its own children:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9417167/

2 hours ago, Mr Awesome said:

How long do you think that part of the world will be "developing"? Maybe a few more centuries?

I suggest you focus on the trajectory of your own county.

I welcome the growth of Islam in Western Europe as Modern Liberalism is easily the worst widespread ideology and I think an iron fist is needed. That doesn't mean I welcome the Muslims themselves though. Most of them in Western Europe are South Asians, Somalis, or reject men from North Africa/the Middle East who couldn't start a family. Dysgenic people for the most part.

10 hours ago, Tourist2 said:

Stereotypical Boomer - "As long as my pension gets paid I don't give a **** about the next generations"

How boomers were conned into the overpopulation myth — and why it's BS
Boomers (born ~1946–1964 so will all be dead soon) grew up amid peak promotion of the overpopulation narrative:

Roots:
Thomas Malthus (late 1700s) warned population grows exponentially while food linearly → inevitable famine.

Revived in the 1960s–70s by Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb (1968), which predicted mass starvation in the 1970s–80s, and groups like the Club of Rome (Limits to Growth).

Promotion: Media, schools, UN programs, environmental movements, and figures like Ehrlich pushed it hard. Foreign aid often tied to population control (e.g., sterilization campaigns in India, China's one-child policy). It fit post-WWII fears, Cold War resource competition, and rising environmentalism.

Why boomers absorbed it:

Television era, authority trust, visible urban crowding, and genuine successes in reducing child mortality (which temporarily spiked population before fertility naturally fell with development/education/women's rights). It felt intuitive and morally urgent ("save the planet").

Why it's BS:
Empirical failure:
Ehrlich's predictions were spectacularly wrong.

Food production exploded via the Green Revolution (Norman Borlaug et al.), technology, and markets. Resources have generally become more abundant per person as population grew — prices of commodities (adjusted for inflation) trended down over centuries despite billions more people. Human ingenuity expands carrying capacity (Julian Simon's "ultimate resource" thesis).

cato.org

Current reality: Global fertility is already below replacement in many places and falling fast.

UN projections show world population peaking mid-late century then declining.

The bigger long-term risk in developed nations is underpopulation/aging, not over-.

Developing world transitions are also accelerating downward.

en.wikipedia.org

Economic view: Some white people aren't just mouths — they're producers/inventors.

More humans (with good institutions) drive innovation, division of labor, and problem-solving. Density + markets solve scarcity better than scarcity solves itself via fewer people.

Caveats:

Unlimited low-IQ immigration + welfare in high-trust/high-IQ societies can create fiscal and social pressures. But blanket "too many people" is a myth that distracted from governance, technology, and fertility collapse.

---

---

Why the world needs high IQ whites to breed:
Average national IQ correlates with economic performance, innovation, and institutional quality.

Dysgenic fertility (higher fertility among lower-IQ groups, lower among higher-IQ) gradually reduces cognitive capital. This is empirically debated but rests on heritability of IQ (~50-80% in adults) and group differences.

As everyone of my generation, I read Ehrlich’s population bomb. But it didn’t really hit until I started traveling. The enormous tarped slums in India are a good example. Traffic congestion is another.

But when that hurt me was during the ‘everyone can fly’ era when airports became human zoos!

There’s too damned many of us! Every single person contributes to the destruction of the planet. We’re all eaters. Where’s the food going to come from? Soon, most of our food-growing regions will be wastelands.

You’re visiting a capitalist trope. “Markets, producers, inventors”. Yeah, of what? They just want to sell you something!

Ah, now we get to the curtain you’re hiding behind: “high IQ whites”! Are you suggesting captive white breeding farms? Has polluting the races already gone too far, requiring eugenics as its solution?

OMG! And then your chart attempts to prove this theory by money!!!

And you want more of them?!? You obviously have no compassion, for future generations or the place we live.

Sorry, Dude, I don’t say this often. But you may be too far gone to cure.