The Plan) – A Communist in Hong Kong

Legal Disclaimer

In October 2023 the Online Safety Act came into effect in the UK. Under this legislation, the providers of online platforms operating in the UK — including Amazon, Alphabet, Apple, Meta and Microsoft — have a duty and obligation to censor and impose restrictions on what we can and cannot say, write, watch, read and hear online. Corporate fines for non-compliance are set at up to £18 million or 10 per cent of global turnover. Censorship of the speech of UK citizens must be imposed in compliance with the dictates of the Office of Communications — which is the regulatory authority for the broadcasting and telecommunications industries of the UK — of the UK Government and, ultimately, of the transnational technocracies in which it has membership, such as the World Health Organisation, whose Pandemic Treaty grants it authority over the freedom of speech of UK citizens and other signatory countries.

Under Section 179 of the Act (‘False communications offence’), a person commits an offence if (a) the person sends a message that (b) conveys information that ‘the person knows to be false’, and (c) at the time of sending it, the person ‘intended the message or information in it to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience’, and (d) the person has no reasonable excuse for sending the message.

However, under Section 180 of the Act, recognised news publishers, which includes the British Broadcasting Corporation, licensed broadcasters and all mainstream media outlets, cannot commit an offence under Section 179, legally absolving them from publishing what they know to be misinformation or even disinformation.

As someone unprotected from arrest, prosecution and sentencing by Section 180, it is incumbent upon me, under Section 179, to state that all the data in this article has been published by the Office for National Statistics, the Ministry of Justice, the British Transport Police, The House of Commons Library, and other news publishers that are recognised under the Online Safety Act 2023. It is, therefore, to the best of my knowledge, accurate and not false. In publishing it, my intent is to make known to the British public the official data about UK immigration. From this data, I draw tentative but logical conclusions that — unlike the UK Government — I invite the reader to interrogate and challenge. By providing the empirical data for debate on a topic of national concern, I do not intend to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to my audience — as the UK Government has done by threatening and imprisoning members of the UK public who raise their concerns in demonstrations or online; nor do I have any reason to think that publishing this data or drawing my conclusions will cause such harm.

• • •

PART ONE: THE PLAN

1. Context to the Demonstrations against Mass Immigration

On 29 July 2024, the 17-year-old son of Rwandan immigrants, Axel Muganwa Rudakubana, stabbed 13 people, 11 of them children, killing three girls aged 6, 7 and 9 years old. The following day, 30 July, a demonstration was held in Southport, the scene of the attack. A seaside town in Lancashire in the north-east of England, Southport has an overwhelmingly English population, with 95 per cent being White and over 58 percent identifying as Christian. Out of an Asian, Arab, Black, and mixed-race population of 4,201, 1,082 are Muslim. These are served by one mosque — one of 2,356 across the UK. In March of this year, ostensibly in response to the genocide it is funding in the Gaza Strip, the UK Government committed to providing £117 million for the protection of UK mosques over the next four years.

As the day wore on, the mosque was attacked by several people, possibly protesters who had identified the murderer — incorrectly or not, as Muslim — but possibly also, given the modus operandi of protest management in the UK, by undercover police sent to create the headlines under which this demonstration could be co-opted by the state to its own ends. Whatever the truth, in response, all the protesters were immediately denounced by the police, media and politicians as ‘far-Right’.

The same day, gangs of machete-wielding boys, Black and White, mixed-race and Middle-Eastern, were recorded fighting in the streets of Southend-on-Sea, another seaside town in Essex at the other end of England. By now an everyday occurrence in the UK, the national media made little mention of this at the time, and signally failed to plaster their front pages with denunciations of immigrants as gangsters and criminals, while the Essex police, who stood around and watched, described the scenes as ‘regrettable’.

The following day, 31 July, a vigil for the dead girls, organised under the banner ‘Enough is Enough’, was held outside Downing Street in London, the seat of UK Government, where — presumably on the orders of the London Mayor, Sadiq Khan — it was brutally attacked by the riot division of the Metropolitan Police Force. These were recorded setting police dogs on the crowd, snatching random passersby, punching members of the public repeatedly in the face, arresting an apparently predetermined number of people (111 were arrested, an extraordinarily high number for such a small crowd), and illegally kettling the remainder for hours. Like the people of Southport, the victims of this assault were also denounced by the Government, media and police as ‘far-Right’. Further demonstrations were held in Manchester, Hartlepool and Aldershot.

The next day, 1 August, the newly-elected Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, declared that the nationwide response to the Southport murders were not protests but acts of criminal disorder and violence, and promised to employ the full force of the state to identify, track down, arrest, prosecute and imprison — without bail — anyone who participated, including on social media. To this end, he announced the formation of what he called a ‘standing army’ to suppress and criminalise the repetition of such protests, the rollout of facial recognition cameras to increase the capacity of UK police spy on the general public, the wider use of Serious Crime Prevention Orders to limit the movements of UK citizens. In addition, Starmer reminded social media platforms that, under the Online Safety Act 2023, they were responsible for censoring its contents, which he blamed for spreading what he called ‘disinformation’. Over the next two days, further demonstrations were held in Sunderland, Liverpool, Leeds, Nottingham, Stoke-on-Trent, Leeds, Blackpool, Hull, as well as in Belfast.

It became apparent to many observers that, by promising to track down and prosecute ‘anyone’ participating in a demonstration, the Prime Minister didn’t mean the UK’s Muslim population, to whose community leaders he promised further funding for mosques in the UK. Over the following week, footage was circulated on social media showing large numbers of Muslim men chanting the Takbir (‘Allahu Akbar!’) and taking to the streets of cities in the Midlands and North of England openly armed with wooden sticks, knives and machetes. In one video widely shared on social media, police in riot gear were recorded assuring the leaders of these vigilante gangs that they were there ‘to help and protect’ them.

The next day, Sunday 4 August, in response to reports by the Government, media and police that the ‘far-Right’ were planning demonstrations in 30 locations across England, counter demonstrations were organised by the Socialist Workers Party, the protest arm of the Labour Party that has formed the new UK Government, under their customary banner of ‘Stand Up to Racism’. Over the following week, Stand Up to Racism organised 22 protests across the UK, including in London, Manchester and Birmingham. Despite the fact that the ‘far-Right’ demonstrations largely failed to materialise, on Thursday 8 August, across what is perceived to be the political and class spectrum, Left and Right, tabloid and broadsheet, every UK newspaper was united in proclaiming victory over ‘hate’, ‘thugs’, ‘racism’ and the ‘far-Right’. The UK hadn’t seen such consensus since it joined the US-led proxy-war in Ukraine or, before that, the two years of lockdown restrictions on our rights and freedoms.

In my opinion — even if it’s no longer safe to say so in the UK — if the murders in Southport were an isolated incident, the British public would be shocked and angry, undoubtedly, but, in general, accept that the murderer must have been suffering from some psychological illness to commit such appalling and apparently meaningless acts. But they aren’t. On 18 July, 11 days before the Southport murders, in response to the taking of Romanian children into social services, riots of Roma and Asians had broken out in Leeds, from which police were filmed fleeing — it was widely noted — as they had not fled in Southport or Downing Street or the other demonstrations across England.

On 23 July, less than a week before, two Pakistani men, both second-generation immigrants, assaulted police officers in Manchester airport, and when the footage of the police responding violently was shown on social media, demonstrations by Muslims were held across England. The next day, on 24 July, a British Army officer was stabbed repeatedly by a Nigerian immigrant. In April of this year, the last of a grooming gang of 24 men, almost all of whom are Pakistanis, were sentenced for the sexual abuse, rape and trafficking of 8 underage English girls in West Yorkshire for a period of 13 years between 1999 and 2012. In May, another grooming gang of teenagers from Syria and Kuwait were sentenced for repeatedly raping and torturing a 13-year-old English girl in Newcastle between 2018 and 2019. Beyond that is the example — and what appears to be the model — of the Rotherham child exploitation scandal, in which at least 1,400 girls, the majority of whom were white and aged between 11 and 18, were groomed, sexually abused, gang-raped and trafficked by mostly Pakistani men between 1997 and 2013. It subsequently emerged that Rotherham Council and South Yorkshire Police, both of whom knew about these appalling crimes, refused to arrest the perpetrators for fear of accusations of racism and reprisals from the large Pakistani population. In September this year, ten years since the independent inquiry was published, seven of this gang, of which 60 have been arrested, were sentenced to a total of 106 years, an average of 15 years each. And in the Midlands and North of England, at least, no-one has forgotten the bombing of the Manchester Arena in May 2027 by a British-born Muslim that killed 22 and injured over a thousand, and the attempts by the UK government and media to divorce its causes from either the effects of mass immigration or the waging of wars in the Middle East by the UK military, even though the perpetrator cited the UK’s support for the US-led invasion of Syria as his motivation.

As a result of these crimes and many more, it is increasingly felt by White working-class communities in England, among whom this increasingly large population of immigrants are housed, that these attacks are not the acts of mentally unstable individuals; that they reflect — however faithfully or not — the religious teachings of a culture that has identified — however mistakenly — the White English people among whom they live as their enemies, as the cause of their failures, as the barrier to their advancement, as the perpetrators of the war crimes against their own countries or other Muslim countries, as infidels of their fundamentalist religious beliefs; and that White women and children, as a consequence, are perceived by them as fair game for the sexual predators who have brought terror to the Midlands and North of England for decades, but who, in the perception of the White English working class — again, rightly or wrongly — appear immune from prosecution from a police force that appears to be obeying orders from local councils, municipal authorities and central government not to antagonise the ethnic frictions consequent upon UK’s policy of mass immigration and wars of aggression.

This is the social context in which the response to the Southport murders took shape. The attacks and murders in Southport were the trigger for the long-suppressed grievances of two communities divided by race, ethnicity, culture, religion and history that have been thrown together by successive UK governments with no thought for the consequences for the social fabric of the UK; or, perhaps more accurately, as we shall see, who have been thrown together with the intention of changing that social fabric. In response to these attacks and the social unrest they have caused, the UK should be having a serious, open and long-overdue debate about mass immigration, its origins, purposes and consequences. Instead, the exact opposite has happened.

On the instruction of our Prime Minister and former Director of Public Prosecutions, the police have arrested people for ‘inaccurate’ social media posts, for expressing ‘anti-immigration’ views, and courts have sentenced mere bystanders at demonstrations to lengthy sentences in gaol without the chance of bail. On 14 August, the Home Office boasted on social media, no less, that it had already made ‘more than 1,000 arrests’, with the promise that what it called these ‘criminals’ will face the full force of the law, having apparently decided in advance, and contrary to the presumption of innocence under UK law, that the courts will find them guilty. As of 1 September, 2024, 1,280 arrests and nearly 800 charges had been made in relation to the civil unrest following the Southport murders, including sentences of two years and more for social media posts. A 51-year-old English man was sentenced to 8 weeks in prison for posting a photograph of Asians wielding knives in front of the Palace of Westminster with the caption: ‘Coming to a town near you’. A 30-year-old English man was sentenced to 8 months for imitating how Muslims pray, apparently making a witness feel like she ‘didn’t belong in her own home city’. An 18-year-old English man was sentenced to 2 years and 4 months for kicking a police van. And a 21-year-old English man received 2 years for encouraging rioters on his Instagram account.

In contrast to these exaggerated custodial sentences, last September an Eritrean immigrant convicted of rape didn’t even go to prison, but was let out on bail, the conditions of which he broke the following month, leading to a police manhunt. In August this year it was revealed that a Nigerian immigrant who killed a 14-year old English boy with a machete in November 2022 will be released after just 6 months of his sentence. In September, a failed Indian asylum seeker was sentenced for 3 years for drugging and sexually assaulting a 14-year girl a year after completing a prior 14-month sentence for assaulting police officers. This July, a Jordanian asylum-seeker who assaulted a WPC was fined £26 and excused community service because he cannot speak English. And the Pakistani brothers who violently assaulted police officers in Manchester Airport, including breaking a WPC’s nose, remain uncharged and on bail two months after the incident.

Already corroborated by the cover-up perpetrated by the police and council in Rotherham, the exaggerated prison sentences for English protestors and social media users have brought forth further accusations of two-tier policing. In response, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Mark Rowley, has declared that such accusations endanger the lives of police officers and are therefore themselves criminal acts. In apparent confirmation that UK gaols are now to be used for political prisoners rather than criminals, on 10 September the Government released some 1,750 prisoners early after serving 40 percent of their sentence, as part of a larger plan to free up 5,500 prison beds. Currently restricted to prisoners serving sentences of under 5 years, in October it will be expanded to prisoners serving longer fixed-sentences, releasing more criminals onto the UK’s already violent streets.

To some of us, none of this is surprising, except perhaps in how long it has taken for the authoritarianism and violence demonstrated by the Government and police under lockdown to return. But after Boris Johnson oversaw the wave of intrusive legislation made into UK law under lockdown and Rishi Sunak oversaw the UK’s collaboration in the proxy-war in the Ukraine, Keir Starmer was always going to implement the next phase of the Great Reset, with facial recognition, digital identity, online censorship and city lockdowns all imminent; but what is behind the latest and steep descent into government authoritarianism and, in this country, that ‘slimy Anglicised form of Fascism’ predicted by George Orwell?

2. UK Immigration Policy

In the UK, we are constantly told by the ideologues of multiculturalism that the history of Britain is a history of immigration. There has, of course, been immigration to these isles throughout our history: Jews and Flemings in the Middle Ages; Africans during the Atlantic Slave Trade; Protestants fleeing Catholic France in the Seventeenth Century; more Jews fleeing pogroms in Eastern Europe in the Nineteenth Century. But none of these groups contributed more than tens of thousands of immigrants at most. Immigration that has had a qualitative impact on the racial demographic of the population of the UK is a recent phenomenon.

• In the Census of 1951, the first to record those born abroad, just 4.3 percent of the population of England and Wales, some 2,118,600 people, were foreign born. This included 162,339 Poles, who were offered British citizenship in 1947 after the Second World War, and 470,000 Irish. Seventy years later, in the 2021 Census, there were 760,000 Poles in England and Wales, while the number of Irish had declined to 300,000.
• In 1948, the British Nationality Act granted subjects of the British Empire the right to live and work in the UK, and between 1948 and 1973 around 500,000 immigrants from the Caribbean settled here. In the 2021 Census there were an estimated 623,115 Black Caribbeans in England and Wales, and a further 513,040 mixed-race (White and Black) Caribbeans, a total of 1,136,155 Caribbeans, or 11.8 per cent of the population. 42.8 per cent of these live in London.
• Between 1968 and 1974, over 70,000 Indians were welcomed into the UK from Kenya, Uganda and Zanzibar when their governments revoked their work visas. Subsequently, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, which first subjected Commonwealth citizens to immigration controls, and the Immigration Act 1971, which required immigrants whose parents or grandparents were not born in the UK to obtain work permits, curbed some of the effects of the British Nationality Act; but in the 2021 Census there were 1.86 million Indians in England and Wales, of which 16 per cent were from East Africa.
• Following the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, which granted all EU citizens the right to live and work in the UK, net migration to the UK was 50,000 immigrants per year, mostly from the European Union. Nearly thirty years later, in the 2021 Census, there were 287,000 Italians, 237,000 Portuguese, 177,000 Spanish, 128,000 French and 85,000 German immigrants living in the UK.
• After the election of the New Labour Government in 1997, net immigration to the UK more than trebled to an average of 165,000 per year. In furtherance of this goal, the Human Rights Act 1998 protected refugees and asylum seekers from being returned to countries where they face the risk of persecution.
• After the expansion of the EU to Eastern Europe in 2004, net immigration to the UK increased again to an average of 250,000 per year. Seventeen years later, in the 2021 Census, there were 593,000 Poles and 146,000 Lithuanians living in the UK.
• After Romania joined the EU in 2007, in the 2021 Census there were 477,000 Romanians living in the UK.
• Following the election of the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government in 2010, net migration to the UK dropped marginally to 200,000 per year; but by 2014 it had risen again to over 300,000, and until 2019, before lockdown, averaged 275,000 per year.
• After initially dropping under lockdown restrictions on travel to the UK, net immigration since 2021, largely from the Indian subcontinent and Sub-Saharan Africa, has risen today to around 700,000 per year, considerably more than double the most it has ever been previously. It is on this exponential increase in immgration since the 2021 Census that I want to focus.

Between 2021 and 2023, 670,000 Indians, 310,000 Nigerians, 166,000 Pakistanis, 59,000 Zimbabweans, 55,000 Ghanaians, 69,000 Bangladeshis and 40,000 Sri Lankans entered the UK as immigrants. That’s a total of 1.369 million immigrants, or more than half the population of Birmingham, the UK’s second-largest city, in just three years. The other country from which a sudden increase in immigrants have come is China, with 274,000 immigrants arriving since 2021, bringing the total up to 1.643 million. However, I would guess these are mostly students from Hong Kong, coming here in the wake of the 2019 protests and the subsequent prosecutions, and will likely reduce in numbers when they find out the state of the UK, economically and politically.

In June 2021, just 6 months into this period of increased immigration, 9.6 million foreign-born nationals were living in the UK. That was more than the population of London and 14.5 per cent of the total UK population. Since then, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has discontinued the publication of these figures. But of these 9.6 million foreign-born nationals in the UK in June 2021, 896,000 were Indian, 456,000 Pakistanis, 312,000 Nigerians, 223,000 Bangladeshis, 131,00 Sri Lankans, 130,000 Ghanaians and 122,000 Zimbabweans. That’s a total of 2.27 million immigrants from these 7 countries living in the UK in June 2021. The ONS data on immigration suggests a further 2 million immigrants have arrived since then, bringing the total up to nearly 12 million foreign-born nationals living in the UK in 2024, larger than the population of Belgium, and around 17.5 per cent of the UK population.

To put these numbers into context and how many immigrants these countries can potentially supply to the UK, India has a population of 1.442 billion, Pakistan 245 million, Nigeria 229 million, Bangladesh 174.7 million, Ghana 34.77 million, Sri Lanka 22 million, Zimbabwe 17 million. That’s a total of 2.165 billion people, about a quarter of the global population, and 32 times the UK’s current population of 68 million. In 2021, these 7 countries (not counting China) supplied 262,000 of the new immigrants to the UK (equivalent to the population of Plymouth). In 2022 it was 508,000 immigrants (the size of Leicester). In 2023 it was 599,000 (the size of Glasgow). According to the ONS, the sudden increase in immigration from these countries is predicted to continue at last year’s levels. This means that, under current immigration policy, we can expect a population of long-term immigrants from the Indian subcontinent and sub-Saharan Africa to arrive in the UK in numbers equal to the population of Glasgow every year for the foreseeable future.

Immigration, however, isn’t the only source of the resulting change in the racial and ethnic demographic of the UK. Birth rates per woman in Nigeria are 5 children, in Zimbabwe 3.8, in Ghana 3.7, in Pakistan 3.3, in India 2.1, in Sri Lanka 2.1, in Bangladesh 1.9. So if, at the current rate, we receive 6 million immigrants from these countries over the next decade, of which half are women that are or will grow to be of reproductive age, these figures could easily double. In contrast, in 2019 birth rates among UK-born mothers was 73 per cent that of foreign-born mothers.

The orthodoxies of woke might insist that, as soon as someone enters the UK, they magically turn British not only in law but in every other respect, but the habits of culture are national in their origins and formation, and families from nations with far higher birth rates than the UK don’t magically reduce when they settle down in the UK. Indeed, in 2019, before the sudden increase in immigration from the Indian subcontinent and Sub-Saharan Africa, the highest birth-rate in the UK was among mothers born in non-EU countries in Europe (1.8 times as high as UK mothers), followed by mothers born in Africa (1.6 times as high), the Middle East and Asia (1.45 times as high). If we take into this account the large numbers of Asian and African families already living in the UK, both foreign and UK born, immigrants to the UK are reproducing at maybe double the rate of the White British population.

The Office for National Statistics has stopped counting, presumably for just this reason, but in 10 years’ time, with current rates of immigration and reproduction, the existing population of around 4.43 million people born in the Indian subcontinent and sub-Saharan Africa living in the UK will increase to well over 11 million.

These immigration figures, moreover, don’t include the UK-born people of Asian and African ethnicity, second- and third-generation immigrants, who in June 2021 numbered 10.8 million people, 16.2 per cent of the current UK population. Given birth rates among all UK Asians, both UK born and foreign born, it’s more than posssible that people of Asian and Black ethnicity in the UK will outnumber the White-British population within a decade.

If this rate of immigration continues — and everything indicates that it will — two questions arise. 1) How and where will the UK build a city the size of Glasgow every year to house them? And 2) given they’re not all doctors and engineers, as we are constantly assured, what have these immigrants been brought here to do?

3. Who are the Immigrants?

We can begin to answer this question by asking who these immigrants are. As of 15 September 2024, 23,533 people have crossed the English Channel illegally this year. In 2023, 29,437 came to the UK on this route. In 2022, there were 45,755, the highest number since figures began to be collected in 2018. Since 2018, more than 135,000 people have come to the UK in this way. In the 12 months to June 2024, Afghanis made up the largest number of illegal arrivals, 17 per cent (5,370 by June 2024) of the total of 30,406, followed by Iranians (3,844), Vietnamese (3,031), Turks (2,925), Syrians (2,849), Eritreans (2,817), Iraqis (2,508), Sudanese, (2,129), Albanians (755) and Kuwaitis (571), with 3,607 arrivals unidentified. With the exception of Vietnam, these are all Muslim countries. In the 12 months to June 2024, 97,000 of these illegal immigrants claimed asylum in the UK. One of the questions our government and media have most studiously avoided answering is why 83 per cent of these illegal immigrants are male, and more than 40 per cent are between 25 and 39 years old, or what has come to be called ‘fighting age’. As with legal immigration, these figures have increased dramatically since 2021. Between 2018 and 2021, 16,500 people crossed the English Channel illegally; but once again, 87.4 per cent of these were male, and 75 per cent were between 19 and 39 years old.

In response to reports of these waves of unregistered men invading the UK via our beaches and shorelines, the UK Government and media have invented the narrative of ‘Stop the Boats’, which has successfully divided the debate over immigration in our Parliament and public forums. However, notwithstanding the figures quoted above and the concerns the British people have about the consequences for our safety, this is an invention designed to deceive the British public about the numbers of immigrants that have entered the UK since 2021, who have not entered the UK illegally but have been invited — and, as we shall see, paid to come here — by our Government.

Of the 1.03 million immigrants that entered the UK last year, most were foreigners on work permits with their dependants (423,000), followed by students and theirs (389,000). Asylum seekers (81,000) made up under 13 per cent of immigrants to the UK. None of the 7 countries from which 1.369 million immigrants have entered the UK since 2021 are in a civil or foreign war. These are all economic migrants.

There is a difference between them, however. Immigrants to the UK on study permits return in large numbers (133,000 last year, while 112,000 came in 2020, when they might have started their degree); while those on work permits and their dependants stay here (only 49,000 emigrated last year compared to 423,000 arriving). Indeed, 75,000 family members joined immigrants already here, nearly as many as claimed asylum. Immigration to the UK, therefore, is overwhelmingly of workers (204,000) and their families (294,000), with nearly half a million entering last year.

Like the number of immigrants entering the UK, net immigration (that is, the number of immigrants minus the number of emigrants) has also increased significantly since 2021; and since 2018 — even before Brexit came into effect in January 2020 — more migrants have come from non-EU than from EU countries. This has been to such an extent that, over the last 3 years, net immigration from non-EU countries has been 1.382 million. The Government may have been compelled to implement the vote of the 2016 referendum, but it has not only ignored the concerns of the British people about the levels of immigration that were largely responsible for the results of that vote but has, in addition, more than tripled the net number of immigrants from 249,000 in 2016 to a high, so far, of 764,000 in 2022. Indeed, so contemptuous have successive governments been in response to those concerns, that there will doubtless come a time when the British wish the Eastern European workers who entered the UK in such large numbers between 2004 and 2020 were still here. Instead, since 2022, immigrants from the EU have been leaving the UK, with a net emigration of 200,000 in the last two years. And they’re not alone. In even greater numbers the British are fleeing their own country, with a net emigration of 517,000, over half a million British people, leaving the UK since 2015. Indeed, I am one of them.

4. Replacement Immigration

It’s from this data, and from the experiences of the British people it corroborates, that the idea has arisen that the people native to the British Isles are being systematically replaced in their own countries. This idea has come to be called the Great Replacement, and is not limited to the UK but applies to Europe and the United States of America. Denounced by Wikipedia as a ‘white nationalist far-right conspiracy theory’, the Great Replacement is in reality United Nations policy published in 2000 under the title ‘Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?’.

The aim of this document is to address the declines in both the size and the working age of the populations of the West, and the burden this puts on the working-age population to support an increasingly large population of retired people. This is not a problem exclusive to the West, with China facing the same problem, largely as a result of the one-child policy instigated in 1980 as part of its economic reforms; but the UN policy paper limits its case studies to France, Germany, Italy, Russia, the United Kingdom, Europe and the USA, as well as Japan and the Republic of Korea. To address this problem, the paper proposes several scenarios, as follows.

The first scenario calculates the populations projected by the United Nations; the second calculates populations for the studied countries assuming zero migration; the third calculates the migration required to maintain the size of the population at the highest level in the absence of migration after 1995; the fourth calculates the migration required to maintain the size of the working population (age 15-64) at the highest level it would reach in the absence of migration after 1995; and the fifth scenario calculates the migration required to maintain the support ratio between the working-age population (15-64) and the retired population (age 65+) at the highest level it would reach in the absence of migration after 1995. It’s with the fifth scenario — which has the most extreme consequences for immigration, and which the other scenarios appear to be proposed in order to justify its implementation — that we should be concerned, because, as we shall see, it is this scenario that is being implemented.

Although not stated, all these scenarios take as given that the status quo in each of these countries remains the same, and that corporate profits are not restrained by the burden of government spending on supporting ageing populations and the higher corporate taxes this would require. On the contrary, as we shall see later, the purpose of replacement immigration is to increase those profits. The one scenario missing from the UN proposals, therefore, is to reduce the cost of living for the mass of the native populations under consideration. As with all immigration policy, therefore, which has always been justified by the claim of ‘labour shortages’, the purpose of the UN’s immigration policy is to increase the profits of capitalism through cheap labour maintained by undermining the ability of British workers to raise their standard of living through industrial action. This, and not the sudden conversion of UK governments to the ideology of multiculturalism, was behind the immigration policy that determined the different and growing waves of immigration into the UK since the Second World War.

Published in 2000, it is now apparent which of the five scenarios the United Nations selected to be implemented by the member nations on their native populations. The Office for National Statistics reported that, in the year ending December 2023, the UK let in 1,218,000 long-term immigrants, of which 1,031,000 (85 per cent), as we have seen, were from non-EU countries. The previous year, 2022, 1,257,000 immigrants arrived, with 1,053,000 (84 per cent) coming from non-EU countries. These figures equate to the most extreme Scenario (V) for the UK, according to which the UN paper states:

‘Scenario V keeps the potential support ratio at its 1995 level of 4.09. Keeping this ratio would require 59.8 million migrants between 1995 and 2050, slightly more than one million migrants a year on average. The overall population would reach 136 million in 2050, of which 80 million (59 per cent) would be post-1995 immigrants or their descendants. . . . The number of migrants needed to keep the population in working-age constant are about twice the level of the past decade (the 1990s). Scenario V, keeping the potential support ratio constant, would demand more than one million immigrants annually. This would greatly exceed immigration rates that the country experienced in the past.’ (my italics)

In the accompanying table, the exact figure for the number of immigrants to the UK between 2000 and 2025 is 23,687,000, at an average rate of 947,000 per year; and between 2025 and 2050 some 36,035,000 immigrants at an average rate of 1,441,000 per year, making a total immigration population since 1995 of 59,775,000, out of a projected population of 136,138,000, exactly doubling the population of the UK today over the next quarter of a century. Of these, 26,299,000 will be under the age of 15; 88,239,000 will be of working age (15-64), supporting 21,600,000 people 65 and older, a support ratio of 4.09.

It is possible, therefore, logically to conclude — hopefully without incurring charges of causing ‘non-trivial psychological or physical harm’ by the UK’s courts — that this extreme scenario, exceeding anything the British people has ‘experienced in the past’, explains the number of immigrants being brought into the UK, the issuing of over 200,000 work permits to immigrants last year, and even the age and sex of those illegal immigrants permitted to arrive by small boats across the English channel.

And yet, despite the evidence of this document and the sharp rise in immigration in the UK and across the West it has determined, in March 2024 the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Turk, an Austrian lawyer personally appointed by the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, described the Great Replacement as a ‘conspiracy theory’, as ‘delusional’, as ‘racist’, as a ‘war on woke’, a ‘war on inclusion’, and — very much as Keir Starmer has done — as directly influencing ‘perpetrators of violence’, finally asserting that ‘multiculturalism is the history of humanity’. This is the sort of rhetoric we’re used to hearing from middle-class students holding SWP placards saying ‘Refugees welcome’. That it is being repeated by such a senior jurist at the United Nations is an indicator of how forcefully — to the extent of equating its repetition with incitement to violence — the globalists want to bury this document and its implications for the Western world.

A UN policy document itself, however, isn’t enough to change immigration into the UK and other countries in the West to the current levels. How was it written and by whom, and how did it come to override national policy? As always, the best place to start is with the banks.

5. Elites and Immigrants

Citigroup Inc. is an American multinational investment bank and financial services corporation with its headquarters in New York City. Citigroup owns Citicorp, the holding company for Citibank, as well as several international subsidiaries. In 2024, Citigroup was ranked third on the list of the largest banks in the United States, and alongside JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo is one of the Big Four banks that together hold about 45 per cent of all US customer deposits, with combined assets in 2023 of more than $9.2 trillion. In 2024, Citigroup was ranked 21st on the Fortune 500 list of the largest United States corporations by total revenue for their respective fiscal years. It has over 200 million customer accounts worldwide and does business in more than 160 countries. Citigroup is mainly owned by institutional investors, with the three largest shareholders in 2023 being the Vanguard Group (8.71 per cent), BlackRock (8.68 per cent) and State Street Corporation (4.3 percent). Citigroup is rated by the Financial Stability Board as a Systemically Important Financial Institution, and as such is on the list of banks that are regarded as ‘too big to fail’. Today, Citigroup has 239,000 employees, although it had 357,000 before the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2008, when it was rescued through one of the largest bailout packages in US history.

Two years before, in a leaked report titled ‘Plutonomy: Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances’, which was distributed to their investor clients in 2005, a team of global strategists at Citigroup wrote an analysis of the global distribution of wealth and consumers. In it they stated that global imbalances had grown to such an extent that they were justified in dividing the world into ‘plutonomies’ — by which they mean countries where economic growth is powered by and largely consumed by the wealthy few — and the rest of the world. The authors cited data showing that the top 1 percent of households in the US economy accounted for about 20 percent of the total income in the year 2000, which was roughly equal to the share of the bottom 60 percent of households put together. Moreover, in terms of wealth the data demonstrated even greater inequality:

‘The top 1% of households also account for 33% of net worth, greater than the bottom 90% of households put together. It gets better (or worse, depending on your political stripe) — the top 1% of households account for 40 per cent of financial net worth, more than the bottom 95% of households put together.’

Far from proposing economic policies to reduce this inequality, the authors of the report, as one would expect of financial advisors, advocated maintaining the unequal distribution of wealth:

‘Society and governments need to be amenable to disproportionately allow/encourage the few to retain that fatter profit share. The Managerial Aristocracy, like in the Gilded Age, the Roaring Twenties, and the thriving Nineties, needs to commandeer a vast chunk of that rising profit share, either through capital income, or simply paying itself a lot.’

The authors went on to observe that, in industrialised countries, there is a relationship between income concentration (plutonomy) and household savings rates, such that the latter tend to fall in plutonomies. All of which brings the authors to the point of their report, which is their new conception of the wealth of nations and wealth accumulation by what have come to be called ‘high-net-worth individuals’:

‘So, Plutonomies exist, and explain much of the world’s imbalances. There is no such thing as the “US Consumer” or “UK Consumer”, but rich and poor consumers in these countries, with different savings habits and different prospects. The rich are getting richer; they dominate spending. Their trend of getting richer looks unlikely to end anytime soon. How do we make money from this theme?’

So what has this got to do with replacement immigration? According to the report, there were three plutonomies in 2004, the USA, the UK and Canada, and it is towards their model of inequality that the rest of the West is heading, and with accelerated speed after the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-08 and the lockdown of the global economy between 2020 and 2022. Where the report becomes relevant to the issues I am addressing here is that it identifies six key drivers that are well-imbedded in all plutonomies:

• 1. An ongoing technology/bio-technology revolution
  2. Capitalist-friendly governments and tax regimes
  3. Globalisation that re-arranges global supply chains with mobile, well-capitalized elites and immigrants
  4. Greater financial complexity and innovation
  5. The rule of law
  6. Patent protection

By now, we should understand why elites well-capitalised by a fiat economices built on unlimited credit are both a requirement and a product of plutonomies; how these elites are protected by the increasing complexity and innovation of finance capitalism; how their immense accumulation of wealth funds capitalist-friendly governments and tax regimes; how these corporate-compliant governments make laws to increase the power and protect the profits of this elite; and how technological innovation — most recently in the form of the new technologies of biopower (smartphones, QR-codes, facial recognition, 15-minute cities, ULEZ cameras, AI surveillance, digital identity, Central Bank Digital Currency, carbon apps, etc.) — is transforming the relation between the individual and the state into a new, digital totalitarianism. Or, at least, we should understand this if we have been observing the Great Reset of Western capitalism that has been implemented under the guise of numerous ‘crises’ manufactured to do just that.

But the question I want to answer here is what role immigrants — also well capitalised — play (for they are moved like pawns on the globalist chessboard) in re-arranging global supply chains in furtherance of all the above. To answer this, we need to look at how these elites use their vast wealth to change and write policy, not only at the level of national governments but — under the new paradigm of stakeholder capitalism — of transnational technocracies that are dictating terms to those we elect to govern our countries, and in doing so have changed the nature and locus of power in the West.

The Open Society Foundations (OSF) is a US-based funding network founded by the billionaire, George Soros, and a major financial supporter of US immigration policy reform. An internal document leak from May 2016 revealed that, in order to gain influence over migration policy and discussions within the United Nations, the OSF’s International Migration Initiative had provided support for the drafting of the Columbia Global Policy Initiative (CGPI). Specifically, the document, titled ‘Migration Governance and Enforcement’, said that the CGPI had been able to ‘take advantage of momentum created by the current (refugee) crisis to shape conversations about rethinking migration governance’. This set the template for concealing the economic reasons for replacement migration behind a facade of concern for refugees seeking asylum from war-torn countries.

The author of the report, Peter Sutherland, a lawyer by training and banker by profession, was at the time the UN Special Representative on Migration to Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General of the United Nations between 2007 and 2016. Before that, Sutherland had been Chairman of Goldman Sachs International (1995-2015); served on the steering committee of the Bilderberg Group (2010-2014); was Chairman of the European division of the Trilateral Commission (2001-2010); Vice-Chairman of the European Round Table of Industrialists (2006-2009), a Director of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group (2001-2008) until the UK Government took it over with taxpayer funds during the Global Financial Crisis; Chairman of British Petroleum (1997-2009); Director-General of the World Trade Organization (1993-95); Chairman of Allied Irish Banks (1989-1993); European Commissioner for Competition (1985-89); as well as holding numerous other positions. He was, in other words, one of the 6,000 or so people who constitute the global power elite who, arguably, wield more power than any national government.

As demonstration of which, the previous year, in ‘Rebuilding the Asylum System’, published in 2015, George Soros had argued that the EU and USA combined should provide €20 billion per year for the housing, healthcare, education and training of refugees, and that Europe ‘has to accept at least a million asylum-seekers annually for the foreseeable future’. That same year, Open Society Foundations, via Sutherland, successfully lobbied for migration to be adopted into the Sustainable Development Goals of the UN’s Agenda 2030. In particular, under Goal 10, to ‘Reduce inequality within and among countries’, Target 10.7 committed member states to ‘facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies’. Referring to the political capital Sutherland was able to leverage within the UN, the OSF document concluded: ‘the gamble has arguably paid off’.

Together, the funding from Soros and lobbying by the CGPI proved successful, ultimately leading, in September 2016, to the Barack Obama/United Nations New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, and the commissioning of what became known as the ‘Sutherland Report’ on ‘Globalization and Interdependence’. Published in February 2017, this contained 16 recommendations for managing migration better through international cooperation. These include:

1. Develop global guiding principles on migrants in vulnerable situations;
2. Expand access to consular protection and assistance in transit, including expanding ‘migrants’ access to social, health and legal services’;
3. Expand legal pathways for people fleeing countries in crisis;
4. Reduce recruitment costs of migrant workers, to which end governments must ‘align national laws, policies and regulations’ with the International Labour Organization’s ‘General principles and operational guidelines for fair recruitment’;
5. Strengthen the architecture to govern labour mobility, including the establishment of a ‘global multi-stakeholder platform on skills and mobility for employment’;
6. Improve access to information and visa facilitation;
7. Develop global principles on return, readmission and reintegration;
8. Ensure access to, and portability of, earned social benefits;
9. Improve remittance markets and financial inclusion;
10. Foster inclusion by equipping migrants with a proof of legal identity, specifically, a ‘universal digital ID system’ that would be required in order to ‘perform transactions or use public or private services across different countries’, and which will be ‘linked to important personal information (e.g. a birth or marriage certificate, transcripts, vaccination and credit records)’.
11. Invest in state capacities to manage migration, to which end it recommended a Financing Facility for Migration that will ‘channel funding’ not only from member states of the UN but also from ‘international financial institutions, development banks and private sector actors’ in order to meet the obligations of Agenda 2030;
12. Improve data for fact-based migration policies and accountability, to which end transnational technocracies like the United Nations, the International Organization for Immigration, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank will increase the institutional capacities to ‘collect, store, analyse and disseminate migration data’; and with that data monitor compliance of nation states with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
13. Foster inclusive national debate and policy coherence on migration, to which end ministries and agencies will confer with ‘local governments and immigrant community leaders’ to ensure ‘alignment of policy goals and objectives’ on ‘development, migration, interior and foreign affairs’. In particular, the report calls on international organisations to ‘educate their constituencies about migration, facilitate international dialogue among parliamentarians on this topic, and foster their engagement in the consultations on the global migration compact’.
14. Empower cities and local governments, including the developing ‘the functions and tools required to manage greater diversity’ and a ‘comprehensive management and leadership development programme for city administrations’.
15. Repurpose the Global Forum on Migration and Development to ‘support consensus-building on an ambitious global compact on migration and to advance the implementation of the migration-related commitments in the 2030 Agenda’;
16. Strengthen UN leadership and capacities on migration, according to which 1) new crisis events will be the ‘new normal’; 2) the UN will ‘speak with one voice’; 3) the UN will measure and monitor the implementation of SDGs by nation states; 4) the UN will support the development of ‘soft law’, by which they mean ‘common standards and principles’ of conduct; and 5) work towards ‘new international norms and treaties’.

If you’re wondering why it is that every political party, politician, government organisation, media platform, educational, cultural and sporting institution have all signed up, with one voice, to the dogma of mass immigration, this document, and particularly recommendations 13-16, goes some way to explaining how such uniform consensus has been created in such a short period of time.

With migration now woven into the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, and with the Sutherland report on ‘Globalization and Interdependence’ released, this paved the way, in 2018, for the adoption of two new global compacts at the UN level: the ‘Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration’ (July 2018) and the ‘Global Compact on Refugees’ (December 2018). And since the vast majority of this immigration is into Europe, on 23 September the European Union dutifully agreed to the ‘Pact on Migration and Asylum’, a set of new rules managing migration and establishing a common asylum system at EU level.

In the conclusion to his report, John Sutherland — who was born in Ireland, which appears to be a testing ground for replacement immigration, with 22 per cent of the population foreign-born as of last year — wrote:

‘Attending to the concerns of those who feel threatened by migration is necessary, if we are to avoid destructive reactions and achieve sustainable results. Confrontation will get us nowhere.’

Unfortunately, nobody appears to have told the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, or the Prime Minister of the UK, or any of the other leaders of the countries on whom Scenario V of the Replacement Migration model are being imposed without a referendum by the native populations whose taxes are paying for it and, despite Sutherland’s call for transparency, almost entirely without our knowledge.

As Sutherland’s 16 recommendation should make abundantly clear, the various policies, initiatives, agendas, goals, targets, declarations and pacts on immigration that have been funded and drafted  by corporate globalists and agreed to by the leaders of the member states of the United Nations and the European Union are targeted at taking ownership and management of migration and border control away from the nation-state and handing their control over to the unelected and unaccountable transnational technocracies intent on forming themselves into a new World Government. Specifically, they bring control of national borders and the flow and routes of migration into the control of the International Organization for Migration (IoM), which like the World Health Organisation is a corporate-lobbied and funded agency of the UN, and the leading international organisation for the management of global migration, with 172 member states, including, of course, the United Kingdom.

Indeed, it was Peter Sutherland who was instrumental in bringing the IoM under the control of the UN, something he described in his report as ‘until quite recently was unthinkable, but is long overdue, and should strengthen both the IOM and the UN’. Replacement immigration, in other words, is part of the Great Reset of Western capitalism, which is why every government, no matter what political party forms it in what country, continues to implement it on the orders of the transnational technocracies whose corporate members govern the West, and whose profit margins the immigrant labour force exists to protect and increase.

But is that all it does? In their conclusions to the leaked Open Society Foundations document on ‘Migration Governance and Enforcement’, the authors write:

‘With the rise of the radical right and growing intolerance toward migrants, the space to design and influence rational migration policies is increasingly constrained. Many of our partners are well-positioned to analyze and produce evidence bases for policy solutions, or to advocate for protections, but traditional arguments are not working. It is worth re-examining methods of influencing and experimenting with framings and argumentation, both at elite and popular levels.’

In Part Two of this article I will look at why it is that transnational technocracies directed by the global elite and funded by multinational corporations are so intent on influencing, governing and enforcing replacement immigration on the West, to what ends, and what the consequences are for the UK, already and in the future.

Simon Elmer