The Impact) – A Communist in Hong Kong

Part One of this article (‘The Plan’) can be read here.

PART TWO: THE IMPACT

 6. Diversity Is Our Weakness

As one of the half-a-million British nationals who have emigrated from the UK over the past decade, I’ve been living in Hong Kong since January of this year, with a month of that time spent travelling in mainland China; and among the many impressions the country has made on me, I’ve been struck by the level of social cohesion that exists here. It is, by some way, the safest place I’ve ever lived in the world. It’s a common sight to see a young woman, walking alone at night in areas of Hong Kong that would be a no-go zone in the UK, without fear or concern for her personal safety; and the conflict and verbal abuse we experience every time we leave our homes in the UK are a collector’s item here. But even below this basic requirement of a civilised society, the respect the Chinese have for the public realm — a respect we once had in the UK, in a different way, and have now lost; the behaviour and responsibility shown by children young and old and the respect they show to adults; the commitment of the individual to Chinese society, perhaps, more than the harmony between them: these are all things I’ve never seen to this degree and extent in other countries.

There are numerous reasons for this, not least of which is the impression I have, perhaps mistakenly, that the administrators of China, from the highest level of government to the lowest civil servant, are trying to make the country a better place for its people, rather than, as has become the accepted norm in the West, extract from it what they can for the least possible effort. But I also have the strong sense that China is striving towards a collective goal, and that comes, I think, not only from its political system but also from the unity of its people. As one would expect of such a large country, the population is composed of many ethnic groups and their different cultures and languages — Zhuang, Uyghurs, Miao, Manchus, Tujia, Tibetan, Mongols, Buyei, Dong, Yao, Bai, Korean, Hani, Li, Kazakhs, Dai and 40 other groups officially recognised by the People’s Republic; but the Chinese are still a remarkably homogeneous people, with Han Chinese making up 91.5 per cent of the population on both the mainland and in Hong Kong.

So — although I knew it well before leaving — returning to the chaos in the UK this summer, and seeing the response to the Southport stabbings that I looked at in Part One of this article, brought home to me how much ‘diversity’ is not our strength, as we are constantly told by the promoters of replacement immigration, from the highest level of government to the lowest civil servant, but the source of much of our weakness. Ex unitate vires: ‘From unity comes strength’, runs the Latin phrase; because it is, of course, unity — and not diversity — that numerous languages and cultures have identified as the source of a people’s collective strength for hundreds and even thousands of years, and which those opposed to the tyranny of the few have repeatedly called on to overthrow that tyranny. It should be no surprise, then, except among the politically amnesiac population we produce in the West, that cultural and ethnic diversity — not between countries but within them, erasing their national and cultural identities, histories and differences and replacing them with the ersatz monoculture of a ‘multiculturalism’ modelled on US consumerism — has been so promoted by today’s few in order to divide and conquer the many over whom they exert their growing power.

Not all nations, however, and not all governments, have managed to promote this division of their populations as a good.

• In Poland, with a population of 38 million, 98.6 percent are Polish. Following the proxy-war in the Ukraine, about 960,000 Ukrainians were resident in September 2023. Although the obedience of its newly-elected government to NATO and the EU indicates a change for the worse in the future, the crime rate in 2024 is 29.2 per 100,000 people.
• In Hungary, with a population of 9.6 million, 93.5 percent are Hungarian, 3.2 percent Romani, 1.9 percent German. The crime rate is 33.8.
• In Romania, with a population of 19 million, 89.3 percent are Romanian, 6 per cent are Hungarian, and 3.4 percent are Roma. The crime rate is 32.8.
• And in Russia, with a population of 147 million, 80.85 percent are Russian. The other ethnic groups are indigenous to their respective regions, with Tartars making up 3.62 percent, Chechens 1.29 percent and Bashkirs 1.21 percent. The crime rate is 39.7.

In contrast to these nations, it is the countries most in thrall to the United States of America and the policies of the United Nations and European Union that have been most successful in dividing its native people through mass immigration.

• Germany (where the footage above of a Ukrainian woman being sexually harassed by male immigrants was taken), with a population of 84 million, doesn’t keep official records of ethnicity, but it is estimated that 71.3 percent of the population are German, 3.4 percent Turkish, 2.6 percent Polish, 1.6 percent Russian, 1.6 percent Kazakhs, and a barely credible 19.5 percent of unidentified ethnicity. 66 percent of immigrants are claiming welfare benefits. The crime rate is 38.0.
• England, with a population of 57 million, according to the Census of 2021, was 73.5 percent English, 9.7 percent Asian, 4.2 percent Black, and 2.9 percent mixed-race. Since then, as we saw in Part One of this article, nearly 1.7 million immigrants have been added to the population of the UK, the vast majority in England, all of them from outside Europe. The crime rate in the UK is 46.9.

• Sweden (where the footage above was taken), with a population of 10.5 million, also doesn’t keep official records of ethnicity, but 25.9 percent of the current population were either born in another country or born in Sweden to parents from another country. This figure rises to 33.5 percent for people with one foreign-born parent; and by 2050 more than half the population is predicted to be immigrants or the children of immigrants. By 2065, the native population is set to become a minority, the Western population to fall to 63 percent, and the Muslim population to increase to 25 percent. Once known for having one of the lowest crime rates in the world, Sweden’s disastrous immigration policies have pushed the crime rate to 48.1, with the death rate from gun crimes now the second highest in Europe, and the rate of reported sexual violence  by some way the highest.
• And France (where the footage below was taken), with a population of 68.3 million, also doesn’t keep official records of ethnicity, but in 2020 it was 76.9 percent French, 2.2 percent Algerian and Moroccan Berber, 1.5 percent Moroccan Arab and 1.3 percent Algerian Arab. Since then, however, roughly 1.5 million immigrants have migrated from North Africa. The crime rate is 54.6.

Not the least interesting aspect of these figures is that, although crime is overwhelmingly a product of poverty, Sweden (with a GDP per capita of $56,305 according to the World Bank), Germany ($52,746), France ($44,461) and the UK ($48,867) are all significantly wealthier than Poland ($22,113), Hungary ($22,147), Romania ($18,419) and Russia ($13,817); yet the latter’s crime rates (29.2, 32.8, 33.8 and 39.7 per 100,000 of the population) are all, except for Russia — and then only marginally in traditionally law-abiding Germany — higher (38.0, 46.9, 48.1 and 54.6). Is it a coincidence that ethnic homogeneity in the former countries (98.6, 93.5, 89.3 and 80.85 percent native) is also higher than the latter countries (71.3, 73.5, 80.4 and 76.9 percent)? Is there a causal connection between immigration and crime?

In July of this year I travelled to the city of Kunming, the capital of the province of Yunnan in south-west China, with a population (4.86 million) about half that of London. Walking back to our hotel one evening around midnight, we came to a roundabout under the numerous flyovers that cross the city, and were happily surprised at what we saw. Indeed, we were so struck by how the users of this urban space interacted, their politeness to each other, the complete lack of verbal abuse, the equal absence of litter or threats of physical violence, even the lack of lines on the road that are such a feature of UK roads, that we recorded it.

In contrast, try to imagine the same scene in London today. The likelihood is that the island in the centre of the roundabout would be occupied by a gang of unemployed Black and Asian youths, most probably the children of immigrants armed with machetes, but increasingly likely to be immigrants themselves. Every wall and pillar would be covered with graffiti. Litter and waste would be everywhere. The place would undoubtedly be used as a toilet by every passer-by. A woman on her own or even with friends wouldn’t dare to enter what in the UK would be a ‘no-go zone’. Indeed, riders on bicycles, scooters or motorbikes would risk attack. Those foolish enough to enter on foot would risk a mugging, either from the gangs or from scooter riders, who would snatch their bags or phones — as they do every six minutes now in London — and disappear onto the side exits.

Even during the day, when the roundabout might briefly be free of such crime, the mix of motorists, bikers and cyclists entering from the half-dozen arteries would guarantee a stream of verbal abuse breaking into physical conflict. Every pillar of the underpass would be fixed with a CCTV camera, every wall covered with warning signs threatening retribution from the police for ‘anti-social’ behaviour. But no police would be there, busy as they are spying on our social media posts, and anyone trying to report a mugging or sexual assault would be ignored. When a Black or Asian man was involved in any altercation, there would be a sharply raised likelihood that they would leave their cars to attack each other with a range of weapons kept in the trunk of their cars. Something like the scenario below, perhaps, which occurred this April in Whitechapel in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. The most densely-populated borough in England with the fastest-growing population and the largest Muslim population (39.9 percent), in the 2021 Census 44.5 percent of the population was Asian (34.6 percent Bangladeshi, the largest population in England), 7.4 percent were Black and 5 per cent were mixed-race, with White British, at 22.9 per cent, a minority in their own country.

We’ve become inured, in the cities of England at least, to this kind of behaviour, this sort of scene; but those of us who can remember — and I was born in London and until recently lived there — can testify that this is something new, something that has been imported, tolerated and become normalised in the last few years. And as someone who has only briefly lived in and travelled around China, I cannot yet testify but I strongly suspect that this simply couldn’t happen in China: not because the police would arrest them — because police presence in Chinese cities is tiny compared to the UK — but because China is a unified society, not just ethnically but also socially, and the people themselves would not permit it. They would, quite rightly, regard such behaviour not merely as criminal but, perhaps far worse for the Chinese, as uncivilised.

And it is. Diversity, as both a policy of immigration and an ideology that encourages us to tolerate and excuse such uncivilised behaviour, has weakened us as a people. So instead of stepping in and stopping it from happening on our streets, as our parents and grandparents would have done, we stand by and watch and film it on our smartphones. Not the least barbaric aspect of this scene — which, to those who don’t know, is a daily occurrence in London — is that it is accepted as such by the bystanders. This, above all, is a sign of the moral vacuity to which we have been reduced by the ideology of diversity. It has torn at the already frayed socal fabric of English mores — which, despite the economic inequality in the UK, largely cut across the classes — and in doing so has rendered us weak as a people, a divided people, who tolerate this behaviour as a matter of course — worse, as a matter of principle that has many names, all of them lies: multiculturalism, political correctness, identity politics, diversity, equity, inclusivity.

It’s an increasingly common sight in London; but a woman dressed head to foot in a long black robe is not going to integrate into English culture. The religious prohibition justifying the imposition of this form of dress on Muslim women, the belief that, since women’s bodies are a source of sexual temptation to men, they should be covered from all men except the one who, through the marriage contract under Sharia law, owns them, and that a woman’s freedoms rather than a man’s desires are the correct object of the interdiction, are all incompatible with and hostile to Western liberalism — even if that liberalism is itself under attack by the US-imported ideology of transgenderism. Both ideologies — both religions — bear the unmistakable impact of a violent misogyny, and neither should be tolerated in the UK, let alone, as they are now, encouraged and even celebrated.

When I say ‘tolerated’ I mean culturally, not legally. Under UK law, every woman has the right to dress as she pleases within the limits imposed by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. That includes the Muslim woman in a Hijab as much as an English woman in a miniskirt. The difference is, while the culture of England tolerates the Muslim dress, Muslim culture teaches its men — and indeed its women — that the English woman is a whore for dressing as such, and therefore an object they are free to insult, abuse and rape. If we encourage this intolerant culture in the UK, one day soon it won’t only be Muslim women living under such official misogyny, but English women too. Indeed, I can see a day when the incidents of sexual violence against women is so high that English women start to wear the hijab, as it will be the only way they can leave their homes without being attacked on the streets of England. Islam is not a culture of integration. It is a religion of conquest. And it is we, the English and our culture, that is being conquered, our values that are being changed to accommodate oppressive new ideologies.

So that it’s clear — and in anticipation of accusations of ‘racism’ or ‘Islamophobia’ from the woke Left this will do nothing to deter — I don’t believe that the behaviour to which we’ve become habituated in English cities from Caribbean, Arab, African and Muslim peoples is a product of their race or even of their religion — for the majority of Muslims, of course, behave in a civilised manner, except, perhaps, towards women, which even leaders of Islam in the West insist on treating as second-class citizens. Poverty, as I have said, is the primary cause of crime, and if the workers emigrating to the UK — as I will argue — bring the crime rates of their native countries with them, it’s partly because the UK doesn’t turn out to be the land paved with gold they were told it would be. But as the national figures I quoted above suggest, crime cannot only be attributed to poverty, which the government funding for the transportation, housing, healthcare, education and training of immigrants to the UK I looked at in Part One have done much to ameliorate.

The anti-social behaviour, violence and criminality that is now a daily experience of living in English cities is also a product of the woke ideology of ‘diversity’, which for decades — and certainly since the New Labour Government of Tony Blair — has told every immigrant to the UK that their failure to attain the economic advancement for which they came to this country is because of White racism, that the English are a racist people, and that England is a racist country. This is the unceasing message of David Lammy, the Guyanese Foreign Secretary of the UK, of Sadiq Khan, the Pakistani Muslim Mayor of London, of Humza Yousaf, the Pakistani Muslim former First Minister of Scotland, and of his successor, the Pakistani Muslim Anas Sarwar — to name only the most virulently anti-White politicians, and say nothing of the imams teaching the same and far worse in UK mosques.

This has created, on the one hand, a deep sense of resentment among immigrants, and particularly among the children of immigrants, whose parents, when they arrived in the UK in the 1960, ’70s and even ’80s, were largely glad and thankful to be here; and, on the other hand, a sense of entitlement, the conviction that not only the UK state but White British people owe them reparation for the crimes of colonialism. Of course, life in the UK is much harder than it was then, the standard of living for the working class much lower. But far from trying to integrate immigrants into the culture, institutions, habits, beliefs, customs and values of the British people, immigrants have become a sharp tool with which to unpick and increasingly tear apart the already worn fabric of British society.

There are few people outside of North London and, let’s say, the 20 per cent of the UK electorate that voted for Keir Starmer to form a Government, who don’t recognise this to be true, and are not concerned — despite the attempts to silence and slander us — about the increasing lack of social unity among what is no longer a British people but a radically divided populace, about the vacuum where any sense of shared values should be, about the suffocating atmosphere of anger, hate and fear in which we now live, and about the tattered remains of what we believed, albeit with different degrees of faith, was UK society. So the first question we should be asking is: what will replace it?

7. The US Model

As the United States of America pushes Europe ever closer to a declaration of war with Russia, it seems to me that an essential part of the Great Reset is to transform Europe into something like the USA; indeed, to make Europe an extension of the USA — as it already is in many respects, including its foreign policy, through the iron grip of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization — above all in the UK, its obedient lapdog, but also in Germany (whose acceptance of the destruction of the Nord Stream gas pipelines in 2022 was a demonstration of its subservience), in France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Estonia, to name only the most subordinate of states. It’s typical of the globalists running the European Union that they have taken the most disastrous and violent social experiment of the Twentieth Century — the United States of America, which has not been at war for only 16 of the 240 years since its founding — and selected it as Europe’s model for the Twenty-first Century. That model, however, is not limited to suborning its member states into a state of permanent war but extends, also, into the ethnic composition of Europe.

As the German political theorist, Hannah Arendt, pointed out years ago, the USA is not a nation-state, with a shared heritage, land, language or origin. Rather, it is a country of immigrants, united only by their US citizenship, which is founded on the constitution of a colonial state built on the genocide of the native-American population. Even among the White population of the United States, 41.1 million have German ancestry, 31.4 million English, 30.7 million Irish, 16 million Italian, 8.2 million Polish, 6.3 million French, 5.3 million Scottish, 3.9 million Norwegian, 3.3 million Swedish, 3 million Dutch, 2.5 million Scotch-Irish and 2 million Russian. But today these only constitute 59 per cent of the 333 million residents of the USA. 19 percent of the population are White-Hispanic, 14 percent are Black, 7 percent are Asian. What’s left of the native Americans make up just 1 percent of the population. 14 per cent are foreign-born immigrants.

In what is still the wealthiest country in the world, 12 percent of all US citizens, 16 percent of US children — an astonishing 11.4 million kids — and 11 percent of US pensioners live below the poverty line. 12 percent of 16-19-year-olds, 6.3 percent of Blacks, 4.9 percent of Hispanics and 3.5 percent of Whites are unemployed. A barely believable 1 in 4 juveniles between the age of 12 and 16 shoplift in the USA. In 2021, a staggering 140,900 rapes were reported. In the same year, 48,830 people died from gun-inflicted wounds. In 2022, there were 890,000 personal assaults and 220,450 robberies, and 1,630 people died of wounds from pointed instruments — knives and larger bladed weapons. In 2023, 1,020,729 vehicles were stolen and there were 656 mass shootings — meaning 3 or more killings in a single incident — over 12.5 every week of the year.

To put this into context, the stabbings in Southport that sent the UK into shock are, literally, a twice daily occurrence in the USA. If the UK is importing criminal behaviour with immigrants from countries with high crime rates, the USA, with a crime rate of 49.2 but an intentional homicide rate of 6.383 per 100,000 people, nearly six times that in the UK, is a bleak image of our future.

In the United Nation’s policy paper ‘Replacement Migration’, which I discussed in Part One, the most extreme Scenario (V) for the USA is an average of 10.8 million immigrants per year, producing a total of 775 million post-1995 immigrants and their descendants by 2050, constituting 73 percent of a total US population of 1.1 billion. For Europe, however, which has a long way to go to catch up with ‘diversity’ levels in the USA, the UN’s most extreme Scenario is an extraordinary 25.2 million immigrants on average per year, producing a total of 1.7 billion post-1995 immigrants and their descendants by 2050, and like the USA constituting 74 percent of a total population of Europe of 2.3 billion. The Replacement Migration plan of the UN, whose headquarters are in the USA and which is instrumental to creating the facade of consensus for its unilateral foreign policy, is to transform Europe through vastly increased migration quotas it has determined on the model of the USA.

For those who seek to benefit from this plan, immigration is a two-edge sword. On the one hand, the financial costs of policing and incarcerating criminals places, in principle, a greater burden on state finances, to say nothing of the social costs to the fabric of the society on which that crime has been imposed. But by criminalising large sections of society — both immigrants and, as we are seeing, those who dare to oppose mass immigration — an equally large source of what is, in effect, a form of slave labour is also produced. Not only that, but by privatising the prison-industrial complex the financial burden on the state is outsourced to multinational companies looking to benefit from such controlled labour conditions, with extremely low wages, minimal housing and sustenance costs, and no chance of industrial action such as unionisation or strikes.

Here again, the model is the USA, whose crime rates have produced the largest prison population (over 2.193 million) in the world, and at 737 prisoners per 100,000 of the population, is 5 times the incarceration rate in England and Wales (148). It is not coincidental to this programme of mass criminalisation, to which no country in the European Union currently comes close, that in 2022 some 37 of the 100 largest contractors for the US Department of Defense were profiting from mass incarceration. Among the 25 largest arms manufacturers, 16 relied on prison labour — around 23 US cents/hour, or 3 percent of the minimum wage — forced on inmates in prisons, jails and — pointing towards the bigger plan — in immigration camps.

As an indication that this is a model the UK state is seeking to reproduce, in July 2021 the UK Government announced a £1 billion New Prisons Programme to build four new prisons for adult males across the UK. The first of these so-called ‘mega prisons’, HMP Millsike, is due to open in 2025 near York in the East Riding of Yorkshire, where it will hold 1,440 male inmates. This followed the £253 million the Government already spent on HMP Five Wells project in Wellingborough, which opened in late 2020 and holds 1,680 prisoners, and HMP Fosse Way in Leicestershire, which cost £286 million and opened in 2023, and also holds 1,680 prisoners.

Built with public money, these ‘mega prisons’ are privately run by the same corporations to which the construction and running of the UK biosecurity state has been outsourced by the UK Government. These include Serco (HMPs Fosse Way, Ashfield, Doncaster, Dovegate and Thameside), the UK provider of public services in prisons, border security, military defence and information technology, which in 2013 was found by the prison inspectorate to be locking 60 percent of prisoners in their cells up to 23 hours per day in HMP Thameside, was accused of covering up sexual abuse in the Yarl’s Wood Immigration centre, and in 2019 was fined £22.9 million by the Serious Fraud Office for charging the Government for electronically tagging people who were dead, in gaol, or outside the UK. Another company running these ‘mega prisons’ is G4S (HMPs Five Wells, Oakwood, Parc and Rye Hill), the UK’s largest security services company, which has already been accused of using detained immigrants as cheap labour in prisons, and of extreme misconduct in child custodial institutions in both the UK and the US. Another company is Sodexo (HMPs Forest Bank, Peterborough, Addiewell, Bronzefield, Northumberland and Altcourse), the French food services and facilities management company and one of the world’s largest multinational corporations, whose subsidiary, Sodexo Justice Services, was criticised by the UK Ministry of Justice in February 2019 for failing to prevent repeated and systemic breaches of the human rights of inmates at HMP Peterborough, including illegal strip-searches of prisoners and leaving a woman to give birth alone in her cell without medical support

This programme, however, was only the first step in fulfilling the Government’s promise, which it announced in November 2020, 9 months into the lockdown of the UK population, to allocate £4 billion to create sufficient prisons to incarcerate 18,000 new inmates, to which another £3.8 million for a further 2,000 prison places was added in 2021, making a total of 20,000 new prison cells. Not surprisingly, as part of this progressive criminalisation of UK society, the Government also allocated an additional £275 million to recruit 20,000 more police officers. Four years and 2.7 million immigrants later, we’re seeing for what new crimes this 23 percent increase in the prison capacity of the UK and 13 per cent increase in police officers is intended.

Like immigration itself, of which it is just one of the goals, the planned expansion of the prison population of the UK is designed to increase the access to prison labour of global corporations that have cut out the middle man of the UK state and, on the model of the US, are now running the prisons and profiting from the labour they contain. As we shall look at in detail, this is predicated on the principle, which all the figures corroborate, that when you import immigrants you import crime. Replacement immigration, in other words, should be understood — not exclusively but partly — as a programme of mass imprisonment. The breakdown of British society we are seeing consequent — again, not entirely but partly — on replacement immigration is not a regrettable consequence but, rather, one of its intended goals.

The model provided by the post 9/11 US security state, according to which any form or degree of authoritarianism and indeed totalitarianism can be justified by the requirements of national security, and which was extended under lockdown into programmes and technologies of biosecurity that encompass the surveillance and control of the body of every citizen, is already the new form of governance in Europe and across the West. The USA is the model for the remaking of Europe not only because it is a country founded on the replacement of the native population by mass immigration, but because it is a country of immigrants living within a military-industrial complex structured to support a Defence Budget of $916 billion last year — more than the next nine highest countries combined and 40 percent of military spending globally — with which it threatens and bullies the rest of the world.

In Part One of this article I asked how the UK, which built 231,ooo new homes last year, will house a population the size of Glasgow every year for the foreseeable future, and it strikes me that this is one way — not in prisons, exactly, but, if we look at what’s happening in Ireland, in mass immigration labour camps. I have for some time now argued that, in the political economy of stakeholder capitalism under which we now live, the camp is the biopolitical paradigm of the state. It is this model that best serves the economic aims of replacement immigration, which are to depress wages in the host nation and increase the profit margins of the multinational companies employing that labour, and with it the wealth of the richest 1 percent who, through the neoliberal revolution, have transformed our flawed democracies into highly successful plutonomies. Let’s have a closer look at how this is done.

8. Immigration and Employment

The English people braving the wrath of Keir Starmer to demonstrate against the murder of three children by a Rwandan teenager who was born and raised in Wales aren’t only worried about so-called ‘illegal refugees’ arriving on small boats across the English Channel, apparently with the blessing of, and certainly without opposition from, the UK Government. They’re also worried about the effects of over 3 million immigrants from non-EU countries settling in the UK in the last decade. This has not had the universally positive impact we are constantly told it has by our politicians, media and educational and cultural institutions. On the contrary, and like everything else we’ve been told about the causes and effects of immigration, the impact has been overwhelmingly negative for the British citizen and taxpayer.

In 2022, two years into the recent trebling of immigration from under 300,000 in 2020 to over a millon in 2023, non-white people in the UK were twice as likely to be unemployed (6 percent) as White British (3 percent). Black people were slightly more than half as likely to be unemployed (7 percent). And among Pakistanis and Bangladeshis the unemployment rate was 3 times as high (9 per cent). Even among Indians it was slightly higher (4 per cent), and among all Asians it was, again, twice (6 percent) the unemployment rate among White Britons. Indeed, every racial and ethnic category has a higher unemployment rate than White British. And these figures only apply to economically active persons, so what we have seen are their larger families in comparison to the White British population, these proportions are likely to be even worse.

In 2022, 159,400 Asians, 82,100 Black and 33,300 mixed-race persons were unemployed in the UK, a total of 274,800 people, equal to the population of Sunderland, and over a third the number of White British people unemployed (772,500) in the UK. No-one who lives in the UK will be surprised by the unemployment rate among Black people, whose disproportionate poverty (with nearly half of all people in Black households living in poverty in 2020) is an indictment in itself of UK immigration policy since the Second World War; but the image we are sold of the industrious, hard-working, self-employed, self-sufficient Asian immigrant is a myth.

The other myth we’ve been sold is that, without immigrants, the NHS would collapse, and that, as Jeremy Corbyn and his fellow ideologues never tire of telling us, immigration is supplying urgently needed doctors, scientists and engineers who are making a net contribution to the UK’s finances. In reality, figures published this September by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBS) and publicised by The Telegraph show that, of the last 3.6 million work visas granted to the UK, only 12 per cent went to high-skilled workers — which the OBS defines as earning 30 percent more than the average UK salary of £33,000 in 2024 — and whose presence here, therefore, benefits the UK economy. The Left’s fantasy of scientists and engineers made up only 0.6 percent of those visas, doctors only 0.8 per cent.

Even with the high-skilled immigrants who make a contribution to the UK economy, the Left, at least, might reflect that anyone from the Indian subcontinent or sub-Saharan Africa fortunate enough to have the wealth and education to have attained a profession in their relatively impoverished countries should use it to the betterment of their own countries, which have a far greater need for doctors, engineers and scientists, rather than taking up posts in the UK on the basis of increasing their salaries and the profits of their employers, or of meeting diversity quotas imposed by woke policy in the service of globalists. Even when it’s a benefit to the host nation, immigration is a brain drain on the countries from which those skilled immigrants come.

But the image of immigrant doctors, scientists and engineers coming here to save our failing public services in what is still the sixth largest economy in the world is a deliberately inaccurate picture of immigration to the UK. Overall, only 5 percent of immigrants contribute to the UK economy as high-skilled workers. And for every £1 they contribute, low-skilled immigrants, of which there are far more, cost the economy £1.60, and that’s not including their dependants, which, as we have seen, more than double their numbers. Even among skilled workers, 72 percent of visas issued in 2022-23 went to workers earning below the UK average salary; and a barely credible 54 per cent were earning half the average salary.

As a result, by the time they are 66 years of age, each low-skilled immigrant — that is, earning 50 percent below the average UK salary — will cost the UK taxpayer £151,000 in welfare, housing, education and health benefits; and at the average life-expectancy in the UK of 81 years that rises to an astonishing £465,000. GDP is a measure not only of the wealth of a society but also of the size of its economy, and the more immigrants to the UK the higher will be the Gross Domestic Product and with it the profits of the corporate sector from producing and selling that product; but as these figures show, the lower will be the GDP per capita, as the English people carry the burden of supporting millions of low-skilled immigrants and their dependents through state subsidies for their transportation, housing, medical care, childcare, education, training and all the other benefits agreed to in the UN and EU compacts committed to by successive UK governments.

The Office for Budget Responsibility projects various scenarios for what impact this will have on public debt, which currently stands — after the 29 percent rise in debt following the Global Financial Crises of 2007-08 and the 11 percent rise after the lockdown of the global economy between 2020 and 2021 — at 98 percent of GDP. In fifty years’ time, the OBR projects scenarios of UK debt increasing from between 225 percent and 350 percent of GDP. Importantly, they demonstrate that raising the average earnings of migrants or reducing how long they stay here will not alter the long-run debt dynamic: ‘debt still rises substantially across the projection period’, they conclude, ‘and is on an unsustainable trajectory at the end of the fifty-year period.’

Irrational as this sounds, however, this is precisely the goal of replacement immigration. In 2002, Eric R. Weinstein, a mathematician by training who went on to become a venture capital fund manager, published ‘Migration for the benefit of all: Towards a new paradigm for economic immigration’. Based on research commissioned by the Migration Branch of the International Labour Organization — itself an agency of the United Nations — the article addressed how migrant workers could be used to reduce costs to employers by undercutting the wages of native workers. Advocating that migrant workers be ‘untethered’ from their sponsor-employers in order to increase their competitiveness on the labour market of the host country, Weinstein argued that governments should assume all the administrative, transport and hosting costs (housing, healthcare, training, education, security, etc.) for immigrants. Since, by ‘governments’, Weinstein means with the taxes of the host nation, the native population, and particularly that labour sector the migrant workers are brought in to replace, is to pay for both the undercutting of their own wages and the additional burden on the state services their taxes and labour provided. In a section of his article titled ‘Preference for migrants, undercutting of natives’, Weinstein wrote:

‘Native workers in the sector concerned may experience none of the economic benefits of the migration programme. In fact, in the absence of any compensation measures, they may experience a substantial loss of income, as the benefit to the host society stems from the ability to lower wages while simultaneously increasing the number of workers employed.’

Weinstein admits that, since migrant worker programmes target occupations already failing to attract native workers, those occupations will become a portal for migrant workers into the host country, but, as a consequence, wages for those occupations will fall. Combined, these two effects will lead to both ‘native flight’ from the host country and to ‘ghettoization’ of the immigrant population; but this, he adds, is only a problem for nations which are ‘striving for a migrant presence to complement, not displace, native workers’. As we have seen, this does not describe the governments of the UK over the past 30 years or their immigration policies.

In confirmation of Weinstein’s predictions, in the 2021 Census on ‘Migration and the labour market’, 31.2 percent of workers in elementary occupations in England and Wales were immigrants. These included 60.7 percent of packers, bottlers, canners and fillers, 38.8 percent of warehouse operatives, 37.3 percent of cleaners and domestics, 36.2 percent of security guards, 35 percent of delivery operatives, 32.4 percent of industrial cleaners, dry cleaners and waiters, 29.2 percent of kitchen assistants, 28.1 percent of elementary process plant workers, 24.1 percent of sales assistants, 22 percent of construction workers, 19 percent of postal workers, 18.8 percent of hospital porters, 18.6 percent of fishing and agricultural workers, and 17.8 percent of groundworkers.

And as predicted by the United Nations, between 2004, when only 10.5 percent of the working-age population was born outside the UK, and 2019, household income before housing costs has remained the same for the poorest fifth of the population. With the exponential increase in low-skilled immigrants from the Indian subcontinent and Sub-Saharan Africa since 2021, incomes among the UK’s native working classes will undoubtedly be depressed even further in the future.

In the conclusion to his article, Weinstein addresses the question of resistance from native populations to their replacement by immigrants and how it can be overcome:

‘Migrant workers are currently making a considerable contribution to world productivity; but this is probably a fraction of what could be achieved if resistance to migrant labour could be decreased at a systemic level. While there are many legitimate reasons to be concerned about unexpected effects, chief among these are likely to be concerns over native wage depression, security and sovereignty. Unfortunately, without a fundamental shift in policies concerning migrant labour, the potential benefit of MWPs (migrant worker programmes) will probably be held hostage to continuing concerns over their unadvertised consequences for the citizens of host countries.’

In Part One of this article we saw how transnational technocracies like the United Nations and agencies like the International Organization for Migration (IoM) and International Labour Organization have taken immigration and border control away from national governments; and we have just looked at the economic motivations for doing so, which create a larger Gross Domestic Product for nation states at the cost of lower wages for the progressively replaced native working class. In the next section, I’m going to look at what Weinstein refers to here as the ‘unadvertised consequences’ of replacement immigration that have an impact on the security — or, more accurately, on the safety — of the native population of England, which is to say, of the English people.

9. Immigration and Crime

However bad these economic forecasts are for the UK, millions of low-skilled or unemployed immigrants and their dependents depressing wages and living off the taxes of the British population are not the only consequences of replacement immigration. As I want to argue — hopefully without being arrested by Keir Starmer’s online Thought Police — when you import unskilled immigrants from impoverished countries with high crime rates you also import crime. And just as with their wages, it’s the already impoverished British working class, among whom these immigrants are being rehoused without consideration for the consequences, who bear the brunt of their criminality and, especially, that of their children. We’ve looked broadly at the correlation between crime rates and immigration in European countries; and I’ve suggested that this may be not an unwanted consequence but, instead, one of the intended goals of mass immigration based on the US model. Now I want to look in detail at the correlation between the policy of replacement immigration and rising crimes rates in the UK.

To return to the mass murder that triggered the demonstrations and counter demonstrations in England this summer, the intentional homicide rate in Rwanda is 3.59 per 100,000 people. Even after three decades of mass immigration, this is more than three times the homicide rate in the UK (1.148), but only a half that in Zimbabwe (6.654 per 100,000, from which 180,000 immigrants have come as of last year), a sixth of that in Nigeria (21.741 per 100,000, from which 600,000 immigrants have come to the UK), the 20th highest rate in the world, and a 15th that in Jamaica (53.336 per 100,000, from which 300,000 have come), the second highest in the world. The intentional homicide rate in Bangladesh is 2.340, in India 2.832, in Sri Lanka 3.427 and in Pakistan 4.214, between twice and four times the rate in the UK. The homicide rate in Wales, where the Southport murderer was born and raised is 0.91, a quarter that of the country in which his Rwandan parents were born.

More generally, while the crime rate in the UK, as we saw earlier, is 46.9 per 100,000 of the population, in Ghana it is lower (44.1), but in Zimbabwe it is 60.6 (the 28th highest in the world), in Nigeria 65.8 (the 14th highest), and in Jamaica 67.5 (the 11th highest). And to relate these higher crime rates to poverty, where the UK has a GDP per capita of $48,867, Ghana’s is $2,238, Nigeria’s is $1,621, and Zimbabwe’s is $1,592. So the 369,000 immigrants from Nigeria and Zimbabwe let into the UK in the last three years, and the 434,000 that were already here, have come from impoverished countries with considerable higher crime rates.

We must also take into account that, in such relatively impoverished countries with diminished resources for policing, the reporting of crime is likely to be lower, and the actual crime rates higher. In India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, with GDP per capita of, respectively, $2,485, $1,407, $2,529 and $3,828, crime rates are 44.4 per 100,000 of the population, 42.8, 62.5 and 42.2, which, with the exception of Bangladesh, are all less than in the UK.

As we shall see, these considerable differences between crime rates in countries with comparable standards of living are passed on to the crime figures among the different nationalities of immigrants in the UK. The data shows that, when you import immigrants from countries with high crimes rates you also import that criminal behaviour, but it is not reducible to poverty alone. Crime in countries to which immigrants have moved is also linked to patterns of behaviour, attitudes and beliefs in different cultures that are brought into stark relief in the UK. So let’s have a look at those figures.

Between June 2012 and June 2021, 2,729,000 immigrants from non-EU countries entered the UK. Since then, a further 2,143,000 entered, making a total of 4,872,000 in 12 years. But crime in England and Wales began to rise long before then. Indeed, crime has risen every year since 2013-14, when there were 4,028,463 police-recorded offences, to 6,657,518 in 2023-2024. That’s a disastrous and otherwise inexplicable 60 percent increase in just 10 years.

As an indicator that these crime rates are being imported into the UK with immigrants from countries with high crime and homicide rates, in 2004, when the Government of Tony Blair opened the UK up to Eastern European workers and their dependents, there was no corresponding rise in UK crime. I would suggest it is not a coincidence that crime rates in Latvia (37.3), Hungary (33.8), Lithuania (33.2), Slovakia (31.3), Poland (29.2), Czechia (26.8), Estonia (24.5) and Slovenia (24.2) — the eight nations that entered the EU in 2004 — are all considerably less than the UK’s (46.9).

What conclusion can we draw from this? I would suggest that the correlation between rising immigration and rising crime in the UK isn’t only because the immigrants have arrived here illegally, and have therefore already broken UK law; and that it is also because the immigrants, both illegal and legal, come from countries with some of the highest crime rates in the world. Afghanistan, from which 17 per cent of the illegal immigrants have arrived across the English Channel, has the 3rd-highest crime rate in the world (78.4). Somalia, from which nearly 176,645 people were living in England and Wales in the 2021 Census, has almost as high a crime rate (66.7), the 12th highest in the world. It shouldn’t surprise us that, of this Somali population, which is already the largest in Europe, 72 percent are living in the UK’s diminishing stock of social housing, that 48.2 per cent are under the age of 21, and that, of those aged 16-64, an astonishing 47.1 per cent are economically inactive.

Unsurprisingly, given this correlation between immigration and crime, the prison population of the UK has risen consistently since 2021, when net immigration from non-EU countries into the UK increased from 101,000 in 2020 to 496,000 in 2021, then to 892,000 in 2022 and 797,000 in 2023. In contrast, during this time net immigration from the EU was minus 260,000. As a consequence, in June 2019 the prison population of England and Wales was 82,710; while in June 2024 it had risen to 87,726, and it will continue to rise. Indeed, having increased at a steady rate of 2.5 percent annually since the Second World War, the prison population has increased by 3.4 percent since the early 1990s, correlating with the general increase in immigration.

Minority ethnicities now make up 27 percent of the prison population of the UK, compared with their 18 percent of the general population, 1.5 times as much. Black prisoners made up 12 percent, three times their 4 percent of the population. Asian prisoners make up 8 percent, slightly less than their 9 percent of the population, in keeping with the lower crime rates in the countries from which they come. Mixed-race prisoners make up 5 percent, two-thirds more than their 3 percent of the population.

The crime rate in the country of origin, however, is not the only predictor of criminal behaviour among immigrants to the UK. Religion — or, more accurately, the behaviours, values and beliefs of the cultural form a religion takes in a host country, particularly among immigrants in countries with a different religion and culture — is a contributor too. The proportion of prisoners who are Muslims has increased from 8 percent in 2002, when they constituted 3 percent of the population in England and Wales, to 18 percent in 2022, more than two-and-a-half times their current 7 per cent share of the population, with 15,909 Muslims in prison in England and Wales in 2024. As the population of Muslims has increased, so has their representation in UK prisons, and at a regular increase over their percentage of the population (around 2.6 times as much) over the last 20 years. Indeed, Islam is the only religion that has a higher representation among prisoners identifying as Muslim than it does among the population, strongly indicating not merely correlation but causality between the increasingly separatist, fundamentalist, oppositional and violent form that Islam has taken in the UK since 9/11 and the UK’s collaboration in US-led wars of aggression in the Middle East.

As we saw in the Islamic counter-demonstrations in August, this form has been further emboldened by the state’s refusal to arrest Muslims for the same actions for which English people are arrested, and by the willingness of both our police and municipal authorities to cover up the crimes of grooming gangs whose identity and actions are formed around an admittedly perverted interpretation of their religion. Perverted or not, however, the question the UK state has failed to address for forty years is not whether the belief that English girls are religiously-sanctioned prey for Muslim men is an accurate interpretation of Islam, whose spokesmen repeatedly claim that it is a religion of peace and quote from the Qur’an to dismiss such crimes as counter to their beliefs. Rather, the question — which is not a question so much as a problem which the UK state has ignored for decades — is why it is that the immigrants who prey on English girls believe they have the right to do so because the latter are infidels of their faith, which teaches them that women are second-class citizens, that disobedient women are subject to physical punishment under Sharia law, and that foreign women are whores.

I’m referring here not only to the Muslim grooming gangs in Accrington, Blackburn, Bristol, Burton-on-Trent,  Canterbury, Chelmsford, Coventry, Derby, Dewsbury, Huddersfield, Leeds, Oxford, Middlesbrough, Newcastle, Peterborough, Rochdale, Rotherham and Telford, and the thousands of mostly English girls whose lives they have ruined, but also to the by-now almost daily incidents of immigrants sexually assaulting and raping English girls. Last year, more than 8,800 rapes were reported to London’s Metropolitan Police service, a rate of one reported rape every hour of every day of the year, and a further 11,000 reports of other sexual violence. Across the UK, in the year to March 2022, 798,000 women aged 16 and over reported a sexual assault or rape. And as with crime rates in general across the UK, this figure was a 31 percent increase over 2021. Indeed, police-recorded sexual offences have rocketed since 2013, when 53,599 were reported, to 193,566 in 2022. Partly this is a result of more offences being reported — although still less, presumably, than the number of sexual offences actually committed, particularly among closed immigrant communities in which women risk ostracisation for disobeying their husbands or reporting domestic abuse; but the evidence of our eyes and the testimony of English girls and women of their fears for their safety in their own country speaks of an additional factor in the rising rates of sexual violence.

Of the 10,442 foreigners currently in prison in England and Wales, the highest number from a single country (1,273) come from Albania, an extraordinary 1.85 percent of the 68,672 living here according to the 2021 Census. When you’re looking at nearly 2 in every 100 immigrants from a single country ending up in UK prisons, you’re looking at a failed immigration system. In addition, 4,203 prisoners are from the European Economic Area (of which 906 are Polish, 750 Romanian, 649 Irish, 361 Lithuanian and 290 Portuguese), 1,831 are from Africa, 1,260 from Asia, 677 from the Middle East, and 527 from the Caribbean.

Among the different crimes for which they are serving time, violence against the person (including assault, harassment, GBH and murder) accounted for 32 percent of prisoner offences, rising to 56 percent among juveniles (aged 15-17). Sexual offences, significantly, was the next highest category for adults (20 percent), while for juveniles the second most committed offence was robbery (14 percent).

To put these figures into historical perspective, between 1900 and 2018, during which the adult population of England and Wales doubled, the prison population more than quadrupled. This has risen consistently since the Second World War, in correlation with the history of mass immigration to the UK I sketched out in Part One. And around half this increase has taken place since 1990, when immigration exponentially increased under successive UK governments from a negative net migration in 1992 to the 685,000 net migration we saw in 2023. As a consequence, which I would suggest cannot be dismissed as a coincidence, in the twenty years between 1992 and 2012 the prison population of the UK doubled in size. If you’re too young to remember what happened in 1992, the Government of John Major signed the Maastricht Treaty that granted all EU citizens the right to live and work in the UK. Since June 2021 alone, and the entry of a further 2.1 million immigrants into the UK, the prison population has increased by 9,400.

As we have seen, in addition to the breakdown of the social fabric in England we are witnessing and have witnessed for decades, there is an economic cost to rising crime and prison numbers. The overall annual cost in England and Wales in 2022-23 was £51,108 per prisoner. For foreign nationals alone, that’s over £532 million per year paid for by the British taxpayer. For the entire prison population of England and Wales it’s nearly £4.5 billion annually and rising.

The ethnicity and religious culture of the prison population, however, is only one measure of the causal relation between immigration and crime. Attacks against women on British Railways have more than doubled from 7,561 in 2021 to 11,357 in 2023. Over the same period, the number of sexual offences increased by 10 percent, while reports of sexual harassment have also doubled. And in the 12 months to March 2024, there were 50,510 offences in England and Wales committed with a knife or sharp instrument. 233 of these were fatal. Overall, knife crime increased by 4 percent over the last year. In London, where the White British population was first revealed to be a minority in its own capital since 2011, it has increased by 16 percent in a single year and, over the last 10 years, by 78 percent.

10. Normalising Replacement

All these figures point to the unavoidable conclusion that UK Governments are importing crime. It is, overwhelmingly, the children of immigrants, first and second generation, who form the machete-wielding gangs of Caribbean, African and Muslim kids we see terrorising the streets of the UK. And not coincidentally, at the other end of the social scale, it’s the children of immigrants who become openly English-hating politicians like David Lammy, Sadiq Khan, Humza Yousaf and Anas Sarwar, who have risen to some of the highest public offices in the land. And as their appalling example shows, poverty alone is not a sufficient explanation for crime and the failure to integrate into the values of the host country.

Immigration is an alienating experience that breeds both crime and resentment, as demonstrated by Khan, who famously declared — apparently without fear of damaging his reputation among the 46 per cent of the London population that are not White: ‘White people are not representative of London’. And both Yousaf and Sarwar use the word ‘White’ as a spat-out pejorative in their speeches in the Scottish Parliament. While Lammy cannot speak on any topic — including, most recently, the proxy-war on Russia — without relating it to Britain’s part in the Transatlantic Slave Trade. These are the voices of alienated, resentful and anti-White immigrants who shouldn’t be anywhere near public office in the UK, and their example — and apparent impunity from arrest under the legislation on hate speech they promote to silence opposition to replacement immigration — has set a precedent for every immigrant to the UK looking for someone and something to blame.

The woke ideology spread by Lammy, Khan, Yousaf and Sarwar, and before them by Diane Abbott, Sajid Javid and Priti Patel — all of whom are second-generation immigrants to the UK — are in the service of a geopolitical agenda that teaches immigrants to hate England and English culture. Worst of all, this agenda is not limited to immigrants, but has spread, under the influence of the globalists who benefit from replacement immigration, to every level of the UK state, from our parliament, industry and local authorities to our educational, medical, cultural and sporting institutions. And in the rapidly-approaching future there waits for us a tipping point, when the quantity of demographic change causes a qualitative change and what we once thought of as British society no longer functions. Diversity, as we’re seeing and experiencing, is a source of our weakness to resist this globalist coup to take control of the governance of the UK.

To counter the evidence of this to the eyes of anyone who lives in the UK, a campaign of positive discrimination has been written into our laws, the policies of our municipal and local authorities and the employment practices of our industries. As a result, although 4 percent of the UK population is Black and 9.3 percent is Asian, under Diversity, Equity and Inclusivity quotas, 37 percent of advertisements in the UK now show a Black person and 15 percent a South Asian. And although, in the 2021 census, the UK had 1.7 million people of mixed race, couples in advertisements are almost without fail composed of a Black man with a White women, with mixed-race kids.

None of this is a reflection of the demographic of the UK now but, rather, a preparation for what it will become under current immigration rates from sub-Saharan Africa and the Indian subcontinent. Indeed, this is what the Open Society Foundations meant when it advocated ‘methods of influencing and experimenting with framings and argumentation, both at elite and popular levels’. Significantly, one rarely sees comparable inter-racial couples composed of an Asian man and White woman, and never of an Asian woman with a White man, because both Islam and Hinduism frowns on marriage outside its religious and ethnic communities. Once again, then, it is the religious beliefs and cultural mores of immigrant communities, and not the native one, that are being pandered to and promoted in our cultural industries.

Positive discrimination, however, doesn’t stop at positive representations of immigrants and anti-White diversity quotas for jobs and opportunities in our industries, but extends, just as importantly, to unrelentingly negative representations of the English population, our behaviour and values. As has been widely noted in innumerable social media conversations if not in our tightly controlled and censored media, in UK advertisements Asians are depicted as scientists and doctors; Blacks as businessmen and fathers; while Whites appear as drunks, sexual predators and unemployed.

As an example of which, in the Home Office’s 2022 video encouraging victims and bystanders to report instances of sexual harassment, all the predators in what is depicted as a highly racially diverse UK are White men, all the victims but one are Black or Asian women, and the only men to try to intervene are Black. It’s hard to imagine any other European nation producing a film so directly targeted at its native population, and impossible to imagine a Black nation, say Nigeria or Ghana, releasing a public information film in which Black men prey on White women. In London, the film is part of the anti-White Mayor’s campaign to report the sexual harassment of women, the increase in which is a product of immigration from countries with very different attitudes to women that are incompatible with Western liberalism. And yet, once again, in the films promoting this campaign, White men are the sexual predators, while Black men play the role of concerned onlookers encouraged to correct their behaviour.

The reality, however, is directly at odds with this programme of propaganda quite openly directed against White people and English culture, and particularly the White working class. In 2023, Black people in the UK were 2.2 times as likely to be arrested as White people, 2.4 times for Black men over White men. An astonishing 3.8 per cent of Black men (43,677 individuals) in the UK were arrested in the year to March 2023 alone, compared to 1.1 percent nationally. That means that, out of every 105 Black men in the UK, 4 were arrested in just one year. As for the image of happy inter-racial families with mixed-race kids, 57 percent of Black Caribbean families and 44 percent of Black African families in England and Wales have single parents, compared with 22 percent of White British families; and 90 percent of these single parents are women. The figures don’t record how many of these ‘baby-mamas’ are white women; but in the twenty years between 2001 and 2021 the mixed-race population of England and Wales increased from 1.2 percent of the population (677,000 people) to 2.9 percent (1.7 million). And if we’re looking for the cause of the rise in petty crime in London that has turned it into a no-go zone for would-be tourists or families thinking of visiting for the day, 69 percent of the children arrested in London were from ethnic minorities. All this testimony to the failure of UK immigration policy is the exact opposite of the anti-White propaganda spread by the London Mayor.

For more serious crimes the statistics are even worse. In the three years between April 2020 and March 2023, of the 978 homicides committed in England and Wales, 18 percent (174 homicides) were committed by Black people, 4.5 times their percentage of the population. 14 percent of homicide victims are Black, 3.5 times their percentage of the population, and 13 percent are from other ethnic minorities. 87 percent of Black victims are male. And the consequences for the British don’t stop at the victims. 12 percent of the UK prison population is Black, three times their percentage of the population. This rises to an extraordinary 30 percent of those under the age of 18, 7.5 times the proportion of the population that is Black, but closer to their representation in UK advertisements.

Statistics aren’t racist. Facts aren’t far-Right. UN policies and EU compacts aren’t conspiracy theories. This data, however, revealing as it is, merely corroborates the negative consequences of replacement immigration experienced by the English people who have been denounced by the Government of Keir Starmer for questioning its causes as ‘far-Right thugs’. You can read and decide for yourself according to your ideology, and dismiss this data — as deaths and rising heart disease following the UK ‘vaccination’ programme continue to be — as correlation without causality. But the only objective conclusion to be drawn from this data is that crime in the UK rises with immigration from countries with high crime rates; that with mass immigration, crime increases disproportionately to the numbers, as immigrants congregate in ghettos of discontent and refuse to integrate with the beliefs and values and behaviours of the host nation; that crime rates increase most rapidly when immigrants come from countries that have no ethnic, cultural or religious compatibility with the UK; and that immigration creates the degree of criminality and social breakdown we are currently experiencing in the UK when immigrants come from countries whose historical oppression and exploitation at the hands of British colonialism and more recent indoctrination by the ideology of Islamic fundamentalism identifies Britain and the British as their enemies.

It is these facts that the UK government, parliament and media are trying to deny when they smear the British and Irish working class as ‘far-Right thugs’ and ‘mindless racists’, and accord themselves, on the back of the murder of three English children in Southport and the life-changing assault on eight more, further intrusive and authoritarian powers over us. Not the least of the agonies the survivors of this racially motivated attack will have to face as they grow into adults is the realisation that the Government of the country in which they were born spent the weeks after their attempted murder by the son of African immigrants insulting, denigrating, attacking and arresting White English people, and that large numbers of English people and the UK media responded to the attack on their lives not with outrage or concern or sorrow or sympathy, but by organising mass rallies at which they shouted ‘refugees welcome’. This alone demonstrates the contempt for English lives held by the acolytes of the anti-English ideology that is promoting — however naively or cynically — the policy of replacement immigration in the UK.

I am surprised that at least one of the parents of the murdered or stabbed children has not been convinced, by threat or inducement by the police, media or government, to appear before the cameras and absolve all immigrants of blame for the attack — including those marching through Southport shouting ‘Allahu Akbar!’ before the dead were buried and while the injured were fighting for their lives in hospital; to call on English demonstrators to obey the Government and stay at home, and to denounce those who don’t as ‘far-Right thugs’. It’s to their immense credit that they haven’t done so, and another measure of the discontent, fear and anger that replacement immigration has caused in the UK and will continue to cause in ever-mounting degrees, and which the Government’s authoritarian, oppressive and cynical response will only increase. I want to end, therefore, in the third and final part of this report, by looking at this response.

Simon Elmer