The Great Replacement: Immigration in the UK (Part Three: The Response)

The Great Replacement: Conspiracy Theory or Immigration Policy? 152 pages, 48 illustrations. Available now in paperback. Click on the link for the contents page and purchase options.

PART THREE: THE RESPONSE

11. An Extremist, Minority Government

In Part Two of The Road to Wigan Pier, published in 1937, George Orwell wrote at length about the threat of fascism in England. He was out in his reckoning about when it would arrive, and England today is a very different place to what it was then; but Orwell was remarkably prescient about what form fascism would take in this country:

‘English Fascism, when it arrives, is likely to be of a sedate and subtle kind (presumably, at any rate at first, it won’t be called Fascism).

‘Fascism is coming; probably a slimy Anglicised form of Fascism, with cultured policemen instead of Nazi gorillas and the lion and the unicorn instead of the swastika.’

We’ve become accustomed to our Prime Ministers presenting themselves to us in this form since lockdown, when Boris Johnson and his Cabinet of criminals announced to the British public the latest removal of our rights and conditions for returning our freedoms from the wood-panelled, briefing room in Downing Street, complete with lecterns, nudge slogans and Union Jacks. Succeeded a year later by a presidential-style, £2.6 million studio, it was the latter, from the look of it — the idiotic slogans removed and replaced by the lion and the unicorn of the United Kingdom — that Keir Starmer used for his address to the nation on 1 August, 2024, when he laid out his government’s response to the demonstrations that had taken place around England in protest at the murders in Southport three days earlier. Even before he announced the crackdown on what he said were not protests but as acts of criminal disorder, swearing to use the full force of the law and all the surveillance powers of the state, the message was clear. Lockdown was over, but the UK was back in a state of emergency, and he, Keir Rodney Starmer, was the man to lead us through it.

The new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was elected on 4 July by 20 percent of the UK electorate, a mere 9,708,716 votes out of the 48,208,507 Britons registered to vote. Under the UK’s bizarre, anachronistic and unrepresentative electoral system, this has given him a 174-seat majority in the House of Commons, the fourth highest in our electoral history. Even among the 59.8 per cent of the electorate who voted in the general election — which, with the exception of 2001 (59.4 percent), was the lowest turnout since 1918 — only 33.7 percent voted for Starmer, making this the least representative parliament in British history. Worse, Starmer was voted on a platform of unconditional support, during the four years in which he was Leader of the Opposition, for lockdown, compulsory masking, mandatory gene-therapy, adherence to the orthodoxies of woke (environmental fundamentalism, critical race theory, transgenderism, mass immigration, etc.), unconditional support for the proxy-war in the Ukraine, unconditional support for the genocide in Gaza, and all the other assaults on the rights, freedoms, futures, taxes and common sense of the British people since March 2022, the month before he became Leader of the Labour Party.

By any measure, therefore — democratic, political and ideological — Starmer is presiding over a minority government implementing extremist policies and programmes with which the vast majority of the British people do not agree, and, indeed, have voted against when given the chance to do so, as we did in June 2016 with the referendum to leave the European Union. Although Prime Minister of the UK, therefore, Starmer has no popular support for what he is doing and will do to the UK, let alone to criminalise the White English population, as he described us after the demonstrations against the Southport murders, as ‘far-Right thugs’, or to characterise us, as he did at a speech in Downing Street this August, as a ‘mindless minority’. As his responses to these murders have demonstrated not only to the British population but also to an astonished world, it is Starmer’s Government that is far-Right, the police he deploys to enforce those responses that are the mindless thugs.

During an interview held in January 2023, Starmer was asked to ‘choose’ between Davos, where the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum is held in Switzerland, and Westminster, meaning the UK parliamentary system; and he responded, without hesitation, ‘Davos’. Now, if we had a media that held our politicians to account, that should have been the end of Starmer’s political career. He was elected, in May 2015, as a Member of Parliament by the London electoral constituency of Holborn and St. Pancras. He was elected, in April 2020, as the Leader of the Labour Party. And he was elected — albeit by a fifth of the electorate — in July 2024, as the Prime Minister of the UK. It is from this electorate, all of whom are citizens of the UK, that he derives what executive power he has. So although he is listed on the website of the World Economic Forum and attended its annual meeting last year — at which he promised a partnership between the UK state and the international corporate sector — he derives none of his power from this organisation, which is best described as a think-tank for global capitalism. The moment he declared his allegiance to its decisions, policies and programmes — which are those of a transnational technocracy of the most powerful corporations, information technology companies and financial institutions in the world — he declared a conflict of interest incompatible with any publicly-elected figure, let alone the Prime Minister of the UK, and should have been compelled by the Labour Party to resign — as MP, as Party leader and as Labour candidate for PM. Instead, a man who has been labelled a WEF puppet from the day he became Leader of the Labour Party is now the Prime Minister of the UK.

Not only on the basis of this allegiance to the WEF — which is quite openly working to subvert the constitutional sovereignty of the UK and other nation states — but also because of the historical moment in which he has been elected to office with the backing of the World Economic Forum, the European Commission, the United Nations and no doubt the numerous other transnational technocracies that run our world, Starmer might turn out to be the most dangerous politician the UK has ever seen. With his ‘unwavering support’ for the proxy-war in the Ukraine and its potential to drag the UK into a nuclear war with Russia, he’s already more dangerous than Tony Blair, who on the basis of an intelligence dossier whose contents were largely manufactured by MI5 took us into a war that not only created much of the current chaos in the Middle East but also contributed to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism among the UK’s Muslims.

And if, as seems inevitable, Starmer oversees the next phase of the Great Reset, he will be more destructive than Margaret Thatcher, who implemented the neoliberalisation of the UK that kick-started the privatisation not only of what were the UK’s publicly-owned assets and services but of Government itself. Indeed, the fact that Starmer is quite openly implementing policies and programmes — Sustainable Development Goals; Diversity, Equity and Inclusivity criteria; 15-Minute Cities; the Pandemic Treaty; Digital Identity, Central Bank Digital Currency and, of course, Replacement Migration— that originated with the WEF, the EC, the UN, the WHO, the BIS and other democratically unaccountable technocracies is unthinkable without Thatcher and her far more internationalist protege, Blair. But to understand how these policies and programmes will be implemented, we should look at how Starmer, at the head of a minority and extremist government, presented himself to the British public in this, the first crisis he has faced as Prime Minister.

12. A Two-Tier State

Before he entered politics, Starmer, who trained as a lawyer, was the UK’s Director of Public Prosecutions, which is to say, the Head of the Crown Prosecution Service and the third most senior public prosecutor in England and Wales. In this capacity he oversaw the grossly exaggerated custodial sentences handed down to participants in the Tottenham uprising of 2011 — a forerunner of the even more exaggerated sentences handed out for protests and social media posts this summer — and in the coverup of the killing of a passing news-vendor, Ian Tomlinson, by an officer of the Metropolitan Police Service during the G-20 protests in 2009.

After stepping down from the position in 2013, Starmer was made a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath, the fourth most senior of the British orders of chivalry, in the Queen’s 2014 New Year’s Honours list. Sometime between March 2017 and October 2018, while serving as reluctant Shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to the then Leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, Starmer secretly joined the Trilateral Commission. This is a global membership organisation set up by the billionaire banker, David Rockefeller, and the US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, and whose 400 or so members include former members of MI4, GCHQ and the CIA. Despite claims to being working class, therefore, and his endlessly repeated anecdote about his father being a toolmaker, Starmer — who was unable to define working class as anything more than a ‘nagging voice’ that is stopping them becoming middle class, and whose poverty, therefore, is entirely due to their lack of ambition — is a figure at the heart of the UK establishment; and one, moreover, who has a long association with its police forces and law courts — as much a policeman as a politician.

It wasn’t surprising, therefore, to see Starmer present himself to the British public as presiding over a police and surveillance state. In the wake of the demonstrations against the Southport murders, the Government released a carefully curated video of Starmer standing in a command centre of the Metropolitan Police Service, surrounded by screens linked to CCTV cameras across London, spying on the UK public. Indeed, on his first visit as Prime Minister to Northern Ireland, where demonstrations had also been held, Starmer chose the headquarters of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to issue his pronouncement that the people demonstrating against the effects of replacement immigration on their communities were ‘clearly racist’.

Lacking a democratic mandate from the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 80 percent of whom did not vote for him or his Government, this signalled that Starmer intends to govern the UK not with the democratic consent he has failed to win but through the forces of the state he now has at his disposal. After five years as Director of Public Prosecutions Starmer knows the police well, and his declaration that he will pursue any British citizen who opposes his policies on replacement immigration ‘with the full force of the law’ says quite clearly that, lacking the charisma, vision, integrity or policies to win a mandate from the British people at the ballot box, he intends to rule over us with the truncheon.

To this end, the UK courts were instructed to issue the harshest sentences to those the Home Office has already declared to the UK public are guilty under new laws or new enforcement of old laws, whether these apply to online safety, hate speech, anti-social behaviour, public order or terrorism. In this respect, Starmer is continuing and accelerating the dismantling of the separation of powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary on which democracies, at least in principle, are predicated, and which has been under unrelenting attack since March 2020. Neither the police forces enforcing his directives nor the law courts handing down the exaggerated punishments for disobeying them are applying the laws of the United Kingdom, even the new laws passed on the back of equally exaggerated claims about the dangers of freedom of speech and the rise of a fictitious ‘far-Right’ that doesn’t exist outside the propaganda of the deep state. Instead, they are acting as politicised arms of the Starmer government being used to force through and impose policies for which the British electorate have not voted, and whose social and economic impact it opposes.

The Online Safety Act 2023, with which I opened this study and which hangs over everything I and others write about these issues, is an example of the legislative ambiguity new laws have introduced into freedoms previously protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Human Rights Act 1998 and other constitutionally protected rights of UK citizens. Under Section 179, I am guilty of an offence if the courts can prove that I had both prior knowledge (scienter) of the falseness of my statement and the intention to do harm (mens rea), both of which, in legal terms, are almost impossible to establish. This legislation, therefore, creates a margin of legal ambiguity into which courts are already introducing the political will of Starmer’s extremist government. As I documented in Part One, this has led to the handing down of exaggerated custodial sentences of several years for the most casual and often quickly withdrawn expressions of personal opinion on social media accounts, made in response to the Southport murders and their aftermath. The purpose of these punitive sentences, as Starmer has made clear in his assumed role of head of a police state, is to deter not only disorder on UK streets but also opposition to his government from the 80 percent of the UK electorate that did not vote for it.

Even this isn’t quite accurate, because through his directives to UK police forces and law courts Starmer has also made it clear that prosecutions for public disorder and hate speech only apply to some demonstrations and to some speeches, while others, in contrast, are encouraged and even supported by the police. Indeed, the accusation of two-tier policing, which has been made against the UK state for many years in relation to the different policing of for example, anti-capitalist or lockdown protests compared with protests by state-sanctioned and corporate-funded movements like Momentum, Black Lives Matter, Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil, have returned with increased conviction and evidence.

As an example of which, in the video (above) I showed in Part One of the counter-demonstrations by Muslim men this August, a bearded man, perhaps an imam, is leading a crowd of armed Muslims in repeated cries of ‘Allahu Akbar!’; yet in another video (below) the same man is told by a concerned UK policeman in riot gear: ‘I just need you to understand, we’re not against you guys; we’re here to help and protect you.’ To which another Muslim man calmly responds: ‘No, no, no. We all understand’. All the evidence suggests that they do; but do we?

Over the last decade, 8.74 million immigrants entered the United Kingdom. 3.314 million of these immigrants were from nations within the European Union, of which 2.262 million emigrated, the vast majority after the Brexit vote, for a net immigration of just over 1 million EU immigrants. In contrast, 4.66 million of these came from nations outside the European Union, of which 1.631 million emigrated, for a net immigration of over 3 million non-EU immigrants. I have presented the data in these articles to show that these, and the more than a million immigrants that will be coming to the UK every year for the foreseeable future — the vast majority of whom will be a drain on the British taxpayer and the UK’s public services — are not here to save the NHS, mend our broken public infrastructure or invent a cure for cancer. They are here for two reasons.

As I have outlined in Parts One and Two of this article, the first role — which they have already assumed for many years — is to do the jobs in elementary occupations for the lowest possible pay, and in doing so depress the wages and capacity for industrial action of the British working class while increasing the burden on both the British taxpayer and the UK’s already underfunded public services, including housing, education, welfare and healthcare, rendering the providers susceptible to the privatisation that most of them have already suffered.

The second role — which we were given an advance viewing of during the counter demonstrations of armed Muslim men across the Midlands and North of England this August — is their potential to form a militia of religious fundamentalists, a Muslim Defence League that can be called on to deploy against a native population too late come to the awareness of, and certainly resistance to, what is happening to our country. In anticipation of which, British police already communicate with UK Muslims through what they refer to as their ‘leaders and elders’, a preferential and deferential treatment denied to the English people. This in itself shows that the British police are treating British Muslims not only as British citizens under UK law — which is to say, as they should be treated — but as something more, something different, as a community living within but separate from the rest of the British population, English and Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish. So far, this second role is only speculative, formed in response to the 100,000 fighting-age men from Muslim countries that have been premitted to enter the UK illegally without wives or families over the last three years. It has rightly been asked why these refugees have left their wives and children, who are far more vulnerable, to face the war they have fled. It has also been asked what happened to our border patrols, and how such huge numbers can enter the UK unopposed if they are not, in reality, invited here by the UK government. And we might reflect that their religious homogeneity (none of them come from Christian, Hindu or Jewish countries) is a requirement of them being housed together in camps. But it is from this Muslim demographic — which in the 2021 Census numbered 3.9 million people with a median age of 27 — that Keir Starmer’s ‘standing army’ will potentially be recruited, ready to be deployed against anyone resisting the arrival of 1 million-plus immigrants into the UK every year for the foreseeable future.

Fanciful as this may seem, there are historical parallels between such a potential ‘standing army’ — Starmer’s carefully-chosen words — and the Freikorps, paramilitaries drawn from the German Imperial Army resentful of their defeat in the Great War. These were used by the new Weimar Republic founded in 1919 under a Social Democrat Party-led coalition to track down and kill communists and other dissenters on the Left. However, as fervent nationalists, the Freikorps despised the Weimar Coalition as much as fundamentalist Muslims today despise the cultural liberalism of Western governments, and its members went on to form the Brownshirts (Sturmabteilung) that would bring Adolf Hitler to power. Throughout this period, these paramilitaries, whose membership eventually grew to more than 3 million, were placed above German law and protected by German police in their violent suppression of the German people, and they knew that any violence they committed would be forgiven in the German press, the German courts and the German Parliament. Like them, millions of first- and second-generation immigrants have been told for decades by Asian and Black politicians, imams, councillors, teachers and entertainers that everything wrong in their lives is the fault of White racism, that England is a racist country and the English a racist people. Now, unsurprisingly — not least in response to the UK government’s indefensible, criminal and ongoing support for the genocide in Gaza, which this month passed its one-year anniversary — they want revenge, and the UK’s government, municipal authorities, local councils, police forces, law courts and media have all made it abundantly clear whose side they are on.

Perhaps the apparatuses and technologies of the UK biosecurity state will make such seemingly anachronistic responses unnecessary, and talk of a ‘standing army’ is part of the noticeably effete Starmer’s attempt to play the Strongman of English fascism. The compliance of the English people with lockdown suggests that resistance to our replacement in what we still like to think of as our own country is unlikely to become anything more than demonstrations and undirected outbursts of violence. Perhaps the camps for thousands of fighting-age male immigrants from Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan and other war-hardened countries currently being built in Ireland are not a model of what will happen here. Indeed, it’s my belief that the camps in which the flood of new immigrants are likely to be housed will be labour camps, not military barracks, but the two are not exclusive. If we had a media interested in holding him to account rather than smearing the English people as racists and thugs, it would be up to the Prime Minister to explain what he meant by a ‘standing army’ formed in addition to the 148,000 officers in the UK’s police forces and the same number in the military. But it’s indicative of how much the English working-class feel alienated and under attack in their own country that fears of such a foreign army have taken shape in the minds of so many.

Whatever plans he has for us, behind the renewed accusation of two-tier policing is the belief — which every word and action of Keir Starmer and his extremist government have confirmed — that if you’re a foreigner you can do anything in England, including murder and gang-rape English children, and the police will protect you; while if you’re English and dare to protest, you no longer have any rights, freedoms or safety, from either machete-wielding immigrants or truncheon wielding police officers, who will hunt you down and prosecute you with the ‘full force of the law’.

In support of which, rather than holding this government to account for its politicisation of our police forces, law courts and prison service, the UK media — Left and Right, tabloid and broadsheet — have also demonstrated that, if you’re a foreigner in the UK, you can do anything, including murder and gang-rape English children, and it will defend you, even to the extent — as it did for the Southport murderer — of representing you as the victim; while if you’re English and you dare to protest, you will be branded ‘far-right’, ‘thugs’, ‘rioters’ — an offence that carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison — ‘bigots’, ‘racists’ and — most predictively of all — a ‘tiny minority’.

In the police state that Keir Starmer, Director of Public Prosecutions, has placed himself at the head of since the Southport murders, the accusation of ‘two-tier policing’ can be extended to the UK itself, which is being changed, under his minority, extremist government, into a two-tier state.

13. Managing Resistance

In his article on ‘Migration for the benefit of all’ that I looked at in Part Two — in which ‘all’ turned out not to include the native workers of the host nation whose wages are depressed, whose taxes are raised and whose public services are overburdened by replacement immigration — Eric Weinstein concluded:

‘If we are honest, the pattern of support and resistance to these [Migrant Worker] Programmes among natives closely mirrors the native sectors most likely to “win” and “lose” from the MWPs respectively.’

The workers’ movement — insofar as its principles are still quoted in the woke-indoctrinated Left — is internationalist because nationalism stops the ‘workers of all countries’ from uniting against what Citigroup (whose motivations for capitalising immigrants I discussed in Part One) called ‘capitalist-friendly governments and tax regimes’. The globalists who write the policy of replacement immigration are internationalist because the sovereignty of national governments inhibits the movement of migrant workers across the globe to increase their profits. The technocrats are internationalist because replacement immigration is a tool with which to subvert the constitutional sovereignty of national governments with the policies, treaties, agreements and compacts of the transnational technocracies over which they preside. And the middle classes of the host nations are internationalist because they need migrant workers to pay for their comfortable retirement as they live longer, with children born in the wealthiest areas of England in 2020 estimated to live an average of 19 years longer than those born in the most deprived areas. The Left, however, in this country as across the West, is too stupid — there is no other word — to distinguish between these motivations, which, according to the dogma of woke, which has substituted itself for anything that could be described as an emancipatory political programme, can be reduced to the two-word slogan: ‘Refugees welcome’.

So much for the winners; but what of those who lose from replacement immigration? It was a tactic of woke under lockdown to slander the non-compliant by associating them with shadowy agents of the ‘far-Right’; and the same tactic is used today to reduce millions of English people — largely but not exclusively from the working class — concerned about what is happening to our country to the deluded followers of media figures like Tommy Robinson, Laurence Fox, Andrew Tate or Nigel Farage — caricatures, respectively, of the working-class geezer, the arrogant toff, the misogynist tough-guy and the City stock broker. This is a tactic founded on the deep-seated and easily activated middle-class liberal’s contempt for the ability of the working-class of any country, but particularly that of England, to think for themselves, to form their own opinions, and of their own complete separation from the experiences to which the working class point as the reason for their concerns and fears.

It is this middle-class, liberal prejudice that is the basis to the stage-managed calls to censor the online platforms in which these thoughts, opinions and experiences can be shared, for fear the ‘poor ol’ working class what can’t fink for themselves’ are corrupted and seduced by such Machiavellian characters. The reality, however, as we saw under lockdown, is the exact opposite. The unfailingly obedient Left — which in this country is almost entirely composed of middle-class liberals — has as readily embraced Keir Starmer’s narrative of ‘far-Right thugs’ as it did Boris Johnson’s narrative of ‘far-Right conspiracy theorists’ under lockdown. And behind both narratives lie the same motives: the cowardice of the English middle classes, their obedience to authority, their embarrassment at being White, their hatred of England, and, above all these, their fear of the White working class.

The official Left slogan, ‘refugees welcome’, is a signalling of woke-compliant virtue. It bears no relation to the reality of immigration in the UK, which is not only of the 100,000 immigrants that have come here illegally over the last three years claiming to be refugees from war and persecution, but also, and overwhelmingly, of the 1 million-plus immigrants and their dependents now being granted work and student visas to come here every year, the consequences that is having for the British working class, and what globalist agenda it is serving. The handful of people on the Left who (generally later rather than sooner) came to realise that woke is the ideology of the Great Reset adopted by Western governments to promote compliance with, and criminalise opposition to, lockdown, masking, social distancing, contact tracing and experimental gene therapy have as easily been brought to heel by the accusation of ‘racism’ as the rest of the Left was by the accusation of ‘Right-wing conspiracy theorist’.

As I have written about before, the Left chose to inject their children with experimental gene therapies, leave their parents to die alone in care homes, and sit at home washing their hands as the government borrowed, bailed and eased UK debt to its current rate of 100 percent of GDP, rather than be called ‘Right-wing’; but ‘racism’ is the cardinal sin of the anti-working class Left, and to avoid it they’ll watch their children grow up a racial minority in their own country and tell them it’s for the greater good. For publishing some of this data on UK immigration, I have already been denounced by members of the Left as both racist and far-Right, and I expect to be again when I publish these articles. When the indoctrinated mind is confronted by the trauma of reality I have presented here it rebels, angrily declares what is real to be fake, to be a conspiracy theory, to be unreal; and, once comforted by this denial of reality, retreats back into the illusions that have been manufactured to keep it compliant.

In the dogma of identity politics, all White people are racist, all ‘people of colour’ victims. The sins of Empire — to which the whole of English history has been reduced by woke pedagogy dissemninated through our educational and cultural industries — must be expiated by the ethnic cleansing of England, which it conceives as an institutionally racist nation built on the crimes of colonialism. Woke replaced the working-class Left’s critique of and opposition to capitalism with the middle-class discourse of White racism. Besides presenting no threat to the corporate sector — and indeed, as I have shown, directly supporting the increase of both its profits and control over our nation — this also allows middle-class liberals to retain their albeit diminishing wealth, but only on the condition that they purge themselves of their ‘White privilege’. Accusing the White working-class of racism in public spectacles is part of this ritual purging, which we saw stage-managed by the Left in response to the traumatic reality of a second-generation immigrant stabbing children on the streets of England.

In The Road to Wigan Pier, from which I quoted at the beginning of this article, Orwell also reflected at length on the role of a progressively impoverished middle class in paving the way for English fascism:

‘Large sections of the middle class are being gradually proletarianised; but the important point is that they do not, at any rate in the first generation, adopt a proletarian outlook. . . . All of these people have the same interests and the same enemies as the working class. All are being robbed and bullied by the same system. Yet how many of them realise it? When the pinch came nearly all of them would side with their oppressors and against those who ought to be their allies. It is quite easy to imagine a middle class crushed down to the worst depths of poverty and still remaining bitterly anti-working class in sentiment; this being, of course, a ready-made Fascist Party.’

When the White middle classes of England gather together to declare their shame at being White, what they are denouncing, of course, is not themselves — the paragons of virtue by which ever other demographic is measured by them and found wanting — but the White working class. It is the fear and loathing for the working class that is now the defining characteristic of a middle class that is increasingly being pushed, as Orwell warned, towards the poverty of the former; and the closer they get to it economically, the greater is their contempt. As he predicted, this is the ready-made fascist party over which Starmer now presides, both inside and outside Parliament. It’s a measure of the bad-faith in which the middle classes live their relation to stakeholder capitalism — and presumably to the great amusement of the WEF globalists whose plans, without realising it, this middle class serve — that their banners proclaim their intent to ‘Smash Fascism!’, as if this well-heeled congregation of useful idiots, holding their prefabricated banners and shouting their prefabricated slogans, could smash anything.

Apparently devoid of critical faculties and evidently incapable of independent thought, it has not occurred to the members of this protest-arm of the Labour Party that, when you support police arresting people for criticising the police, or politicians threatening to remove what freedom of speech we have left to protect us from speech they have categorised as ‘hate’, or a government criminalising opinions with which they disagree, or a media that censors data the government doesn’t want us to read, or technocrats over whose decisions affecting your country you have no say, you are supporting fascism. The return of fascism, as Orwell predicted, has taken many forms under many names — the biosecurity state, neo-feudalism, stakeholder capitalism, the new world order —  but they all begin by removing our rights and freedoms, seek to extend their power over us through crises events, and contain, within them, the potential and intent to expand their power into a system of totalitarian domination in which we are required, at every moment, to demonstrate our compliance with the new norms of behaviour, our obedience to the ever-changing orthodoxies of doctrine, our willing submission to consensus, and our innocence of thought-crime. Indeed, the criminalisation of the UK population for our thoughts, trialled with such success under lockdown and now being extended and expanded by the extremist government of Keir Starmer, is the foundation on which the apparatuses of the Great Reset will be imposed on the British public.

In his speech to the media held in the garden of Downing Street this August under the title ‘Fixing the Foundations’, Keir Starmer described the millions of English people who are worried at the impact of replacement immigration on the safety of their wives, daughters, children, jobs, housing, healthcare and social services as a ‘mindless minority of thugs’. Just as I don’t share this contemptuous description, I also don’t believe that the immigrants permitted to roam the streets of England armed with clubs and machetes under the protection of the police are a minority either. The purpose of rioting — whether that of English demonstrators goaded by two-tier policing into attacking a mosque or immigration hostel, or of Muslims encouraged into racial separatism and religious fundamentalism by the unconditional support from the UK state — is a police tactic. It is used, as it has been used by Starmer, to criminalise protest and justify introducing authoritarian new laws, rolling out new technologies of surveillance, increasing the number of police officers to enforce and employ them, and funding the new prisons to hold those found guilty of daring to oppose his government on all his policies, not just replacement immigration. Allowing immigrants to attack English people and enjoy housing, jobs and benefits paid for with the taxes of the English people while denouncing those same English people as ‘racist’ will inevitably bring a response, and the demonstrations, anger and violence in response to the Southport murders were a long time coming. It’s the English who are being imprisoned now, but all of us will live under the authoritarian new laws.

And it’s the same demographic of first- and second-generation immigrants that will make the difference in passing those authoritarian laws in the UK Parliament. The Labour Party long ago exchanged drawing its support from the English working class for appealing to the increasing number of Black and Asian immigrants. It’s not the least purpose of accepting a population the size of Glasgow from the Indian subcontinent and sub-Saharan Africa into the UK every year that, as citizens of Commonwealth countries, these immigrants can vote in UK elections; and under the new orthodoxies of identity politics according to which the woke Left operates, it’s little less than certain that they will vote for Asian, Black and Muslim Members of Parliament in the misguided belief that they will ‘represent’ them.

Of the 650 MPs elected in this year’s General Election, 90 are Black or Asian, 25 are Muslims, 10 are Jewish, 263 are women, and 64 identify as LGBTQ+. Hailed as the ‘most diverse parliament ever’, as if this were a Miss World pageant and not the legislative body of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 335 of these MPs, over half, are new to the job. Members of Parliament compose our legislature, the ultimate defenders of the sovereignty of the UK, and the primary criterion for their job is the ability to read, understand and vote on new Government legislation. How many of the Labour Party’s 411 MPs — all of whom have proudly identified themselves, in the immediate aftermath of the general election, as representing the different tribal identities of the divided UK population in group photographs resembling wedding parties and posted on social media — were voted into Parliament because of their race, gender, religion or sexuality?

Behind its ill-advised trumphalism and infantile behaviour, this, unmistakably, is a woke legislature appointed to rubber-stamp the legislation of the Great Reset they have neither the education nor the training to scrutinise. The UK has had some incompetent legislatures in the past, particularly the one that waived through the Coronavirus Act 2020 and the 580 coronavirus-justified statutory instruments made at a rate of 6 per week for two years under lockdown, 537 of which were only laid before Parliament after they came into effect; but this promises, already, to be the worst Parliament we’ve ever had, and under current UK immigration policy it will only get worse in the future.

14. Debunking Reality

The management of the response to the Southport murders by the political organisations and media companies that turned the vote of 20 percent of the UK electorate into the extremist government of Keir Starmer are not the only way in which resistance to replacement immigration is being managed. In Part One of this study I cited the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Turk, describing the Great Replacement as a ‘conspiracy theory’, as ‘delusional’, as ‘racist’, as a ‘war on woke’, a ‘war on inclusion’, and directly influencing ‘perpetrators of violence’ — accusations that are repeated on every Socialist Workers Party-organised demonstration. But these accusations — they don’t deserve the description of arguments — are arrived at by more discursive procedures in the universities from which so many of the acolytes of woke are drawn, and in which they are indoctrinated into compliance with the policies and programmes of the globalists who, for this reason and others we saw most clearly manifested under lockdown, invest millions in UK universities and other institutions of higher learning. If the ‘international financial institutions, development banks and private sector actors’ identified by Peter Sutherland in his recommendations to the UN capitalise the movement of immigrants from country to country to meet global supply chains, and transnational technocracies of world government create the policies that override the sovereignty of nation states over their own borders, academia has no less a role to play in indoctrinating the populations of the host nations into embracing replacement immigration, and they do so, primarily, by denying its existence.

There’s a remarkable consistency in how the denunciations of what is homogenised as a single theory called the ‘Great Replacement’ on the websites of campaign groups, newspapers, universities, journals, the British Broadcasting Corporation and the United Nations, go about reducing it to a conspiracy theory of far-Right White nationalists and racists, with whom anyone opposed to mass immigration in any degree or for any reason is immediately equated. To do so, they all employ practices of critical theory widely but inaccurately called ‘postmodernism’, which takes, as the object of its knowledge, not the events that historical records claim to document but, instead, the discursive procedures and institutional frameworks within which those histories were written. With specific reference to the work of the French philosopher and historian of ideas, Michel Foucault, this has come to be called, largely through the appropriation and dumbing down of his work in US academia, ‘discourse theory’. The basic premise of this Americanised interpretation of French critical thought is that our perception of reality is a product of power, and that reality, therefore, can be refashioned through challenging, overthrowing and replacing the discursive structures and institutional frameworks through which power is given legitimacy and agency.

This is only a brief summary of an immensely complex body of thought and the history of its appropriation, but one of its least expected outcomes is that procedures of critical analysis have been turned into the tools of an Orwellian Thought Police trained in our institutions of higher learning and employed in our educational, cultural, entertainment and propaganda industries. Much like the Red Guards of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, these youthful ideologues employ the new technologies of surveillance developed under the Fourth Industrial Revolution to identify and punish apostasy and non-compliance with the new orthodoxies of thought in the political economy of stakeholder capitalism.

It’s part of the ideological inversion implemented under 40 years of neoliberalism that the critical theories of the 1960s and 1970s, which sought to expose and challenge the mechanisms of power, have been transformed into the means by which power is further entrenched and defended from criticism (feminism into transgenderism, post-structuralism into censorship of speech, post-colonialism into critical race theory, socialism into woke). And it is as such that the discursive procedures of discourse theory have been applied — more accurately, misapplied — to what it reductively constitutes as a homogeneous body of theories called the Great Replacement.

This process of reduction generally starts with the figure of Renaud Camus, the French author of the 2011 book, Le Grand Remplacement, which apparently popularised the term, and which is itself placed within a history of what are retrospectively defined as ‘far-Right theories’ supposedly going back to the Nineteenth Century. In the UK, in particular, the now widely reviled name of Enoch Powell is cited as a contributor to these theories, most specifically with the speech he gave in April 1968 to the Conservative Party, which he warned about the effects on British society of allowing 50,000 immigrants every year into the UK:

‘For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country. They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted.’

Powell delivered the speech as part of his argument against parliament passing the Race Relations Act 1968, which made it illegal to refuse housing, employment or public services to someone on the grounds of their colour, race, ethnicity or national origins. Subsequently televised and published in the UK press, in an opinion poll conducted later that month 75 percent of the British public agreed with Powell’s assessment. Despite this, he was sacked as Shadow Secretary for State for Defence for being, in Edward Heath’s words, ‘inflammatory and liable to damage race relations’, and subsequently ostracised from UK politics. This is the same reason the police forces and councils of Rotherham and Rochdale gave for covering up the gang rape of thousands of English girls by Pakistani grooming gangs. But it’s an indication of how far back the policy of mass immigration goes that, in 2016, the Chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Trevor Phillips, himself the children of Guyanese immigrants, wrote of Powell’s fate in the Telegraph: ‘Everyone in British public life learnt the lesson: adopt any strategy possible to avoid saying anything about race, ethnicity (and latterly religion and belief) that is not anodyne and platitudinous.’

It’s because, like many others, I am not willing to repeat these anodyne platitudes, which woke has formalised into a system of unthinking obedience that has brought the UK to where it is now in relation to replacement immigration and many other aspects of the Great Reset, that I dare to quote this passage from Powell’s text. I would guess that, even after the ensuing half a century of indoctrination and censorship, not 75 percent of the British public anymore but at least that percentage of the White working class would recognise themselves today in his description.

It should be apparent to anyone who applies the actual practices of critical thought to understanding the world that, rather than rebutting the reality of replacement immigration with data on the numbers of immigrants (proving, for example, that they are not replacing the populations of the host nation) and their economic and social impact (proving that immigrants make a net contribution to the economy of the host nation, do not increase its crime rates and increase its cultural richness) — all of which would require the sort of empirical research I have conducted in these articles that shows the exact opposite is true — the Great Replacment theory is, instead, dismissed with an apparently inexhaustible range of epithets: not only conspiracist, far-Right and White nationalist but also Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, Nazi, etc.

Even that is not enough, as these dismissals— which have come to be accepted, without question, as the definitive ‘debunking’ of whatever reality there might be to replacement immigration — also argue that the Great Replacement conspiracy theory is to blame for various acts of mass shootings, invariably in the USA, including the El Paso shooting in 2019, the Buffalo shooting in 2019 and the Jackson shooting in 2023. However, as we saw in Part Two, the USA had 656 such mass shooting events last year, and presumably not all of them were of immigrants or motivated by the Great Replacement conspiracy theory. On the basis of this spurious connection, and with a swiftness of judgement we’ve become accustomed to by the pathologisation of dissent under lockdown, anyone ‘believing’ in the Great Replacment conspiracy theory — for it is part of this debunking that it remains at the level of faith and abjures verification by facts — is diagnosed as being vulnerable loners, typically single men, working-class, White, who have been ‘radicalised’ by a secret, never-defined but all-powerful far-Right.

Finally, and apparently closing the matter as worthy of further consideration by enlightened liberal minds, this conspiracy theory is linked with the names of the conservative political commentator, Tucker Carlson, in the US and, in this country, Tommy Robinson. Most damning of all, as if scaring children with bedtime stories designed to shame middle-class liberals into silence, the Great Replacement is linked with the former and potentially future US President, Donald Trump.

Amid the remarkable homogeneity of the numerous and official attempts at debunking the Great Replacement, however, what is universally lacking is any consideration of whether this conspiracy theory contains any purchase on the world of reality that still exists beyond the manipulation of our perception of it by the media and other instruments of ideology. Like so much of the critical theory that emerged out of the 1960s and 1970s, the analysis of how discourse distorts and constructs our perception of reality has come, instead, to substitute for the analysis of that reality. In place of which, students of these universities, readers of these websites, audiences at these protests, citizens of Western nation states, are all invited, entreated, bullied and shamed into joining a consensus of opinion about the reality of the world according to the principles of identity politics.

What is at stake in that consensus, which once accepted is adhered to and proclaimed with the fanaticism of religious dogma, is no longer the empirically verifiable facts about the truth or falsehood of replacement immigration, but, instead, whether one chooses to believe those facts. Perhaps more accurately — because those facts are never presented, let alone rebutted, in the ‘debunking’ of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory — what is being observed and recorded by the apparatuses of the surveillance state is whether one chooses to know these facts. Indoctrinated by the dogma of identity politics, according to which something is true only insofar as it conforms to the principles of woke, even those facts that may, on occasion — for example, in these articles — slip through the net of censorship and ideology are then dismissed as ‘racist’, ‘far-Right’, etc. In this way, reality itself is embraced or dismissed according to whether it conforms to or contradicts the ideology of the indoctrinated. The signs declaring ‘Refugees welcome’, ‘Stand up to racism’, ‘Stop the far right’, ‘Say yes to diversity’, ‘Say no to Islamophobia’, ‘Black lives matter’, are not political slogans. Rather, they are declarations of an ideologically-compliant reality that have been placed in the hands, mouths and minds of their proclaimers by the manufacturers of woke.

The ‘New Normal’ to which Peter Sutherland alluded in the sixteenth and last of his recommendations on replacement immigration to the United Nations that I discussed in Part One, in which the United Nations and its 193 member states will all ‘speak with one voice’, the populations of nation states will be monitored and measured for compliance with that voice, and ‘common standards and principles’ of behaviour are made into the laws of those states, is not a code of conduct to which we will be expected to adhere. The New Normal is a declaration of the reality in which we are, already, being forced to live. What is being replaced is not only the native populations of the host nations of replacement immigration; it is the reality of the world we once inhabited.

15. The Colonisation of the UK

For those of us who have watched the resistible rise of Keir Starmer, he was always going to implement the next phase of the Great Rest, with the use of facial recognition technology by UK police already rolled out, a system of digital identity announced in the King’s Speech, and lockdowns for civil unrest proposed by the government’s advisor on political violence and disruption. As the UK’s former Director of Public Prosecutions, Starmer has been picked to oversee the final transformation of the UK into the totalitarian state to which we’ve been stumbling, blindly, since March 2020. We’ve been waiting for this for four-and-a-half years since our servile compliance with the illegal removal of the rights and freedoms of the UK population under lockdown. The frog is nearly boiled. The response of the English people to the Southport murders was, perhaps, the sudden realisation that the water is simmering nicely on the fire and the lid has just been placed on the pot.

But however this ends, England will never be the same again. No working-class White child will be able to walk the streets of English cities alone. No White girl has been able to do so for some time. We have invited foreign peoples into our home, elected their clerics into power, spread their ideology in our culture, normalised its replacement of our values, covered up their crimes, and accused anyone who has dared to observe what is happening — let alone protest against it — of racism. We are a nation divided by immigration, and as the new Deputy Prime Minister has made clear by abandoning plans to prioritise housing those who have lived in the UK for ten years over housing recent immigrants in the UK’s social housing, the division is a hierarchy, with the White English working class — as always — on the bottom rung of the ladder. The ladder, however, is getting longer. The middle rungs are being removed. Immigrants are on a higher rung, but it’s still nowhere near the middle; while those at the top have disappeared into their ivory towers, and there’s a line of police and maybe more between them and the rest of us.

Already, in 2019/20, before the huge rise in immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa I looked at in Part One, 48 percent of Black people in the UK lived in social housing; 8 percent of social housing was being let to Black tenants, double their proportion of the population, and 7 percent of the tiny amount of new social housing being built, with a net loss of 11,700 homes for social rent to demolition and privatisation in England in 2022-2023. 10 percent of the roughly 10,000 new social housing properties being built in England per year are going to tenants born overseas. 72 percent of Somalis, nearly half of whom are unemployed, live in social housing. In the 2021 Census, 20 percent of social housing in England had a head of household who was born overseas. In London, that figure more than doubles to 47.6 percent. An astonishing 10 per cent of social housing in England and 17.5 percent of that in London had a head of household that had arrived here since 2021. This is a measure of both how many immigrants the UK has taken in the last three years and the burden they are placing on social services paid for by the people they are replacing. Incredibly, of the 793,000 residential properties for social rent in London in 2022, under our Pakistani Muslim Mayor, some 377,000 had a head of household who was born in a different country, and 183,000, 23 percent, by a head of household who had entered the UK since 2021. These figures, however, only apply to the head of household, not to the actual number of foreign-born nationals living in UK’s social housing, or those immigrants living in social housing but not listed as the head of the household on the Census, or, in far greater number, second-generation immigrants born in the UK and living in social housing. So the actual percentage of the UK’s social housing occupied by immigrants and their children will be considerably higher than these already incredible figures.

And yet, this year in England alone, 324,990 households are registered as homeless. 117,450 households, including 151,630 children, are living in temporary accommodation, up 12.3 percent on last year, and the highest number since records began in 1998. Between April 2023 and March 2024, 11,993 people were counted sleeping rough on London’s streets. And yet still the immigrants keep coming. And why wouldn’t they?

In 2021, across England and Wales, foreign nationals were more likely (18 percent) to live in UK social housing than people born in the UK (17 percent). Similarly, the percentage of non-EU immigrants that have been living in the UK for more than five years and are claiming benefits (28 percent) is higher than the percentage of UK nationals (25 percent). As with crime rates, those immigrants with access to social housing in England and Wales is determined by the countries from where they came. 72 percent of people born in Somalia, 41 percent of those born in the Caribbean, 37 percent of those born in Ghana, 36 percent of those born in Afghanistan and 34 percent of those born in Bangladesh  are living in UK social housing, and 42 percent of all of those born in Africa. In comparison, just 16.8 percent of people born in the UK were living in the UK’s social housing.

Back in the year 2000 — the same year the UN policy paper on ‘Replacement Immigration’ was published — in an article that today wouldn’t get anywhere near the editor’s desk of The Guardian, it was predicted that the White population of the UK would be a minority by the end of the century. It’s telling that, already, the author reported that ‘the demographer who made the calculation wished to remain anonymous for fear of accusations of racism’. Twenty-four years later there is no longer fear of such an accusation but rather absolute certainty. But we know, now, that this was a conservative estimate, based on net immigration of 185,000 in 1999. Last year, net immigration was 685,000, and at this rate the White British will be a minority in our own country by 2050 at the latest.

In response, we can point, with the finger of the politically-correct Left, at law-abiding, hard-working migrant workers, blame the criminality and unemployment of those who aren’t on the economic conditions from which they came, cite examples of White grooming gangs operating in the UK, and deny any connection between the actions of those who happen to be Muslim and the ‘real message’ of the Qur’an. But none of that makes the tax burden on the English people any less, the suppression of the wages of the working class any less impoverishing, the lack of social housing for English people any less of a scandal, the crime rates in the UK any lower, local authorities and police covering up decades of the mass rape of underage girls any less of a betrayal, or the incompatibility of Islam with Western liberalism any less obvious to those who have to live with ghettos of immigrants growing larger and larger in the working-class communities of England.

We can speak from the ivory tower of anarchism about the imminence of a revolution for which there is absolutely no evidence but which is always brewing in its fantasy of a united struggle of natives and immigrants against our common enemy, the global elite and the puppets they have installed in our government, and repeat over and over that we are being played against each other by the deep state. But this ignores the very real experience of the working class, which I have documented in these articles, which is not a product of far-Right propaganda, or racism, or Islamophobia, and which is anything but one of unity with immigrants. It is, to the contrary, the experience of being replaced by immigrants, economically, culturally and physically, at the hands of the UK state to which they pay their taxes, and on the direction of a transnational system of governance from which they tried to take back control of their country in 2016, and which is subjecting them, through the legislative authority of successive UK governments, to a programme of economic immiseration, homelessness, rising crime, two-tier policing and unrelenting attacks on their history, culture, race and values.

And we can even repeat blanket statements about the crimes of British colonialism, conclude that all White people are racist, and declare, in an ecstasy of self-loathing, that the English had it coming, and the sins of Empire should be visited on its impoverished children, as if it was the working class of Britain that inherited the booty of Western imperialism in Africa, India, China and the Caribbean as much as in Iraq, Libya, Syria and the Ukraine. But this is the ahistorical erasure of class by the middle-class ideology of woke, according to which the British working-class who can’t get a job or housing or medical care in their own country are guilty, from the moment they are born to the moment they die, of ‘White privilege’.

At the end of last year, 8.1 million adults, 1.92 million pensioners and 4.33 million children were living in poverty in the UK, 69 per cent of the latter in working families. The vast majority of these — not as a percentage of minority ethnicities, which is the exclusive focus of data on ethnicity and poverty in the UK, but the total number of people — were White British, over 7.5 million out of 14.35 million, living in poverty in the sixth largest economy in the world. A decade ago, only 24.6 percent of White British boys who were eligible for Free School Meals (FSM) at the age of 15 — one of the euphemistic recognitions of the working class the UK government permits — achieved five good GCSEs (A-C), compared to a national average of 58.8 percent, and to 40.3 percent of Black boys also in receipt of Free School Meals. In 2021/22, just 13.4 percent of White boys eligible for FSM went on to Higher Education, the lowest of any ethnic category, compared with 18 percent of FSM-eligible Black boys.

Even across the classes, White students were the least likely to progress to Higher Education by the age of 19 at 41.8 percent, compared to 51.5 percent for Mixed-race, 63.5 percent for Black, 67.8 percent for Asian and 83.8 percent for Chinese pupils. Unfortunately, being White and working class is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, which only prevents discrimination in the UK on the basis of your age, disability, marriage status, religion, sex, sexuality, what sex you believe you are and your race — unless, that is, you’re White.

Immigrants aren’t responsible for this. Drawn as they are and increasingly will be from the working class of impoverished countries, on average they live in even greater poverty than White people, although not the White working class. But as the statistics on social housing and benefits show — and to these could be added equivalent data on diminishing access to healthcare and the decline in the standard of living — their migration here in numbers intended to replace the English people in our own country is part of this programme of immiseration and colonisation.

Try trumpeting the benefits of ‘diversity’ to the working-class children of Rotherham and Rochdale, to the women raped by the refugees the Left welcomed here as the children of Southport struggled for their lives in hospital, to the English youths who can’t a get a job in their own country under racist diversity quotas because of the colour of their skin, to the freezing pensioners and homeless of England who watch as the homes their taxes paid for are handed to immigrants who have contributed, and will contribute, nothing to this country, in order to fill the pockets of the globalists who sent them here. Look at the footage I have included in these three articles, and tell me that this is evidence of an immigration policy that has successfully integrated immigrants into the UK, or has any intention of doing so in the future.

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the West, which for so long has straddled the world, for good and for bad, is a civilisation in rapid decline. We only have to look at our utter subservience to the ideology of woke, a cancer eating at the heart of the West, or at our gullibility for the frauds perpetrated against us over the last few years under the guise of unending ‘crises’, or at how readily and eagerly we have been taught to hate ourselves, our history and our culture, to know that we are nearing our end as the dominant civilisation on this planet. As with the fall of Rome, billions will rejoice at our downfall. Millions already are. And many of them are living among us. Our leaders plan to rule over the ruins, the lords of low-skilled and impoverished Asian and African populations imported into Europe, much as they once did over the colonised peoples of Empire. The English working class, if they aren’t already, are destined for second-class citizenship in this New World Order, much as Indians, Chinese, Africans and other conquered people once were in their own countries under British rule.

If we don’t think it can happen again and happen to us, simply because our skin is white, we haven’t been paying attention to our own history. We are being conquered in our own country; and just as the leaders of colonised countries once did with the British Empire, it is our rulers who are opening the doors to our conquerors, but multinational corporations that are cutting the business deals by which our standard of living will be pushed lower and our political sovereignty dismantled. Colonialism has taken different forms today than it had under the British Empire, but we should never forget that it was the kings of Benin who sold African slaves to European traders; the East India Company, which at its peak was the largest corporation in the world with its own private army, that turned India into a colony of the British Crown; or that the UK used Indian soldiers under British officers to police colonies such as Hong Kong and suppress native uprisings like the Boxer Rebellion in China. History shows that soldiers are more willing to brutalise civilians in their own country when they are of a different race, ethnicity or religion; and for all our supposed allegiance to multiculturalism, the demonstrations across England this summer showed that little has changed, except who is being brutalised and who is doing the suppressing.

In truth, the UK lost its sovereignty as a nation state years ago, in 1993, when Parliament passed the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, which bound us to the unregulated movement of people, goods, servces and capital within the European Union; or before that, in 1985, when the Schengen Agreement opened the UK’s borders to the 22 member states of the newly-formed European Union; or before that, when Parliament passed the European Communities Act 1972 that subordinated Parliament to EU law; or, even before that, when we welcomed the US military onto UK soil during the Second World War — an occupation it has never relinquished, with 9,700 US Air Force personnel deployed in the UK and a further 57,000 across Europe today — and then, in 1945, joined the United Nations, an organisation dedicated to dismantling the nation state. Like most political revolutions, the globalist coup has been a long time in preparation, but the closer it comes to completion the faster it moves. That time is now.

As I have shown across these articles, it is these transnational technocracies that dictate our immigration policy and, in doing so, have allowed the corporate sector lobbying them to take control of our borders and, indeed, of our sovereignty as a nation. We saw this demonstrated conclusively under lockdown, when our freedoms and rights were dictated by agencies of the UN like the World Health Organization, which has absolutely no democratic mandate over the UK electorate, and the multinational pharmaceutical companies whose interests it represented. But Britain today, and the even worse Britain that awaits us in the future, is what a conquered state looks like.

Simon Elmer

To read part four of this study, click on ‘The Great Replacement: Immigration in the UK (Part Four: Solutions)’.

I had intended to end with this warning, but the future these articles have predicted for the English people is so dark that I feel I cannot leave the matter here. I hope I have shown conclusively that replacement immigration is real: both an economic plan and its social impact, as well as the management of our response to it, all three of which are intentional, not a conspiracy theory but a conspiracy unmasked. But what can be done can also be undone — with the will to do so. In a further article, therefore, I will look at what we can do to avoid or, at least, ameliorate the future that awaits us if we continue to do nothing.