The Great Replacement: Immigration in the UK (Part Four: Solutions)

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 FOUR: SOLUTIONS

16. The Duties of Citizenship

Over the previous three articles I have tried to show, hopefully 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. But what can we do? I’ve looked at the opportunist and authoritarian response of the Starmer government; at the indoctrination of the 20 percent of the electorate that voted him into office and shouted ‘Refugees welcome’ as the surviving children of the Southport attack lay in hospital, fighting for their lives; and at the institutions through which globalists have manufactured support for replacement immigration in our politics, laws and in the New Norms of our conduct and compliance. But what is the response of the British population that is being replaced, not only demographically but also among our political representatives? Let’s imagine, for a moment, that we do not want our children to live as strangers in their own countries, which they undoubtedly will be by 2050 at the current rates of immigration and reproduction in the UK, or to be the impoverished serfs of globalists in a two-tier state, ruled by a technocratic system of governance over which they will have no say and which has no democratic accountability to them.

Every time a national government faces opposition to its rule from a larger enough section of its population to threaten its authority — not only the government of Keir Starmer but also, to speak only of the most woke governments, of Emmanuel Macron in France, Olaf Scholz in Germany, Pedro Sánchez in Spain, Justin Trudeau in Canada, Anthony Albanese in Australia, or Ursula von der Leyen in the European Union — their leaders describe the millions of people opposing them as a small minority of whatever is the latest way to insult those they govern (thugs, racists, fascists, anti-Semites, Islamophobes, etc.). But the reality is, they’re the minority. In the case of Keir Starmer, the people who voted him into office are an extremist minority: a minority in terms of their numbers, extremist in their views, into which they have been indoctrinated by the institutions of woke, and which are shared by very few of the other 80 percent of the electorate, and by none, I would guess, of the nearly 20 million people and 40 percent of the electorate who were registered to vote but didn’t, not for his party, not for any of the parliamentary parties.

It’s taken several years, many deaths and many more injuries, but the majority of the British people do not believe we should have been locked in our homes for two years for a respiratory disease with the infection fatality rate of seasonal influenza (0.03 percent). They no longer believe that injection with experimental gene therapies should be a condition of the government returning our rights and freedoms; that our governments should have spent £12.8 billion of their taxes to the most corrupt regime in Europe while cutting public services across an increasingly impoverished UK; that global warming presents a threat to life on the planet that can only be stopped by paying more taxes to the government and permitting them to remove more of our rights and freedoms; that men they don’t want getting undressed in the same room as their daughters can become women not only in law but in reality simply by declaring it. These are all extremist views, counter to everything we, as a civilisation, know about disease, medicine, war, natural history and human biology, but which, despite that, have been written into our laws and policies. This has been achieved by the same process I have outlined in these articles, by which successive governments of the United Kingdom have for thirty years implemented a plan to replace the native population of the countries they govern without informing those people, let alone giving us a vote on whether we wish to be replaced. And the vast majority of the British people do not believe this to be for the common good.

In the Brexit referendum of 2016, 17,410,742 UK citizens voted to leave the European Union, nearly double the 9,708,716 who voted for Keir Starmer to form a government in July this year; and they did so on the highest voter turnout (72.2 per cent of registered voters) since the 1992 general election. They voted to leave the EU overwhelmingly in the belief that doing so would curb the overwhelmingly negative impact of replacement immigration in the UK. And the British people have been ignored — by this government as they were by the governments of Rishi Sunak, Boris Johnson and Theresa May. The UK government has a mandate from the British people that, for 8 years, it has continually ignored, and continues to do so.

Like those before it, therefore, the minority, extremist government of Keir Starmer is not representing the will of the people of the United Kingdom. As I have shown by tracing the origins of UK immigration policy back to the United Nations and its corporate lobbyists, he is obeying the transnational technocracies that have taken away the sovereignty of the nation state and their elected governments, in the interests of the multinational corporations that dictate policy for those technocracies. This applies not only to the policy of replacement immigration but to all the other treaties, compacts, agendas, programmes and technologies that, in combination with each other, have implemented the revolution in the West out of forty years of neoliberalism into the new political economy of stakeholder capitalism by which we are governed.

In their ignorant and unthinking support for this revolution, which is perhaps more accurately described as a globalist coup, the extremist minority of the UK electorate that voted Keir Starmer’s minority, extremist government into power are a danger to the people of the British Isles, indeed to the UK itself as a sovereign state. But the real danger comes from those to whom their ignorance and stupidity have opened the floodgates. This danger, let me be clear, is not only from the immigrants to the UK, who have as little knowledge of why they are being manoeuvred around the globalist chessboard and to what ends as the people who unconditionally welcome them here. As I have shown in these articles, immigrants are a financial burden on the state, a means to depress working-class wages, a growing threat to our safety, and an unwanted attack on the social fabric of the UK. But the far greater danger is from the global elite and the corporations and financial institutions they own and run. These are moving millions and millions of immigrants into this and other European nations without any concern for the consequences this has already had and will have, except insofar as they have to manage our resistance to those consequences, intent as they are on reaping the financial and political benefits of doing so.

In response to which, we have to remind ourselves that we are the majority, that outside the undemocratic electoral system by which we are ruled, the Starmer government has no mandate to do anything. That includes subjecting us to the economic suicide of Net Zero, constructing a surveillance state around us on the grounds of manufactured crises, killing our elderly and poor in their unheated homes, handing over our taxes to fascist governments in the Ukraine and Israel, or swamping our country with immigrants from impoverished countries with high crime rates and beliefs hostile to our own.

In a very short period of time, Starmer has become one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers in British history, which given the shambles presided over by the criminals in Downing Street over the last few years is quite an achievement. Instead of accepting his bullying and threats and plans to turn the UK into a two-tier state, we should remind ourselves and, more importantly, this extremist government, that we are still the majority; that whatever power even a minority government wields comes from us; and that, despite Starmer’s so-far successful attempt to politicise our police, courts and prisons, the rule of law still pertains, just, in the UK; that we are still, nominally at least, a democracy; that no legislature has the right to pass laws that infringe on our constitutional rights as citizens of that democracy; and that the UK’s police forces and law courts exist to impose those laws, not to act on the direction of Ministers of State, including our Prime Minister. Under those laws, which are themselves supported by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and the hundreds of years of case law that constitute the UK’s Constitution, we have the universal, inalienable and indivisible rights to freedom of conscience and philosophical belief. And we have the freedom to communicate those beliefs in our speech, writing and by any other means without Starmer’s Thought Police knocking down our doors and carting us off to a private prison.

No government has the right to remove those freedoms on the grounds that it, the government, has unilaterally decided that extremist beliefs with which the vast majority of the British people do not agree, and are contrary to the history of Western democracy, liberalism and rationalism, must be protected from being questioned by branding any opinion contrary to those beliefs ‘hate speech’. In doing exactly that, Starmer and his miserable predecessors have criminalised the political and philosophical principles on which Western democracy, liberalism and rationality were founded, and replaced them with the technocracy, authoritarianism and irrationality of woke. Despite the opportunities for the abuse of Enlightenment principles the raft of legislation made into law since March 2020 has introduced into the UK, the law is still, just about, on our side. What are not are the officers and appliers of the law in our police forces and law courts. It is up to us, therefore, outside these corrupted and no longer lawful institutions, to uphold the laws of this land, under which it is incumbent upon us, as citizens of a democratic nation, to resist the tyranny that threatens us today.

Like its predecessors, the UK government is not governing the UK either with a mandate from, or to the benefit of, the British people. Through a manipulation of the electoral process to a degree never seen before, Keir Starmer has been placed at the head of an authoritarian government that, over the next parliament, will roll out facial recognition, 15-minute cities, biometric digital identity, central bank digital currency and doubtless many other technologies and apparatuses of what will be, in effect, a police state, with the former Director of Public Prosecutions at its head. These are the forerunners, at the very least, of fascism — precisely that ‘slimy Anglicised form of fascism’ Orwell predicted — and we are within our constitutional rights to do everything we can to overthrow the political coup that has been perpetrated against us as a polity, a land, a people. Indeed, as many political philosophers have argued — including  Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill — it is our duty as citizens of the UK and nationals of this country to do so. The abnegation of this responsibility will lead, inevitably, to the future I have tried to paint an accurate picture of in this and other articles on the Great Reset.

What replaces it? We can say, with greater certainty than we can about anything else in our future: not another parliamentary party, not the Conservatives or the Liberal Democracts or the Greens, or any of the other crooks and imbeciles who sit in the House of Commons. But let’s imagine that, when the United Nations came to us in the late 1990s with the problem of declining birth rates and an ageing population, we didn’t accept their predetermined solution of replacing the native population of these Isles with millions of immigrants, but looked, instead, at the causes of the problem and how they might be addressed.

17. The Revaluation of Our Values

As I wrote in Part One, when I discussed the United Nations policy document titled ‘Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?’, the balance the UN assumes must be maintained in Western countries between the diminishing number of working-age people and the increasing number of retired people implies maintaining and even increasing the current capitalist-friendly plutonomies, most obviously in the inadequate salaries of workers and the inadequate taxes of the corporations that employ them. But I also think that the UN’s professed fears about this growing imbalance, like its fears about global warming and the rise of a far-Right, are an excuse for enforcing their expanding and deepening control over nation states. Their Malthusianism, in other words — that is, their belief that the world can only support a limited population before reaching a crisis point that has now arrived — is justification for the revolution across Western countries into the political economy of stakeholder capitalism. This, I think, cannot be denied. But it’s also undeniable that the White race is breeding itself out of existence, and this can be addressed.

We might start by observing that there is nothing natural or inevitable about population decline in the UK or among other White-majority nations. The decline in birth-rate is a product of economic forces and ideologies whose harms could be reversed by economic incentives and different ideologies encouraging higher birth rates, rewarding other kinds of behaviours and promoting different values to the ones that have brought us to where we are now.

In 1964, the average number of children per woman in the United Kingdom was 2.762; in 2024 it is 1.755. That’s a loss of 1 child for every woman in just 60 years. Last year, 3.18 millon families out of 19.5 million in the UK (16 percent) had a single parent, and 85 percent of them had single mothers. 45.7 percent of single-parent families had an adult child living with them. Half of males aged 25 were still living with their parents, and half of females aged 22, ages at which they would previously be entering into relationships and starting families. Indeed, the 2021 Census showed that 37.9 percent of the population of England and Wales, 18.4 million people, had never been married or in a civil partnership, the highest percentage ever. 9.1 percent of adults, 4.4 million people, were divorced.

There is also the influence of the increasing number of non-reproductive relationships and sexualities. 201,000 people, 0.42 per cent of the population, were in same-sex marriages or civil partnerships. 748,000 people in England and Wales (1.5 percent) identified as lesbian or gay, 624,000 as bisexual (1.3 percent), a further 165,000 as some ‘other’ sexual orientation, and 262,000 (0.5 per cent) believed they were another sex.

A decade ago, across the UK, 1.5 percent of the population identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual in 2012. This rose in just five years to 2.1 percent in 2017, when double that, 4 percent of people aged 16-24, identified as LGB. By 2022, this had risen again to 3.3 percent of the population (3.8 percent of men, 3 percent of women), more than double what it was a decade before. Remarkably, 9.2 percent of people aged 16-24 identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual. And for women of that age, as distinct from across the age spectrum, this rose to 10.6 percent, doubled what it was in 2017 (4.8 percent), compared to 7.9 percent of men. In contrast, for those aged over 65, only 0.7 percent identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual.

In the orthodoxies of woke by which reality is reconfigured in accordance with its principles, this doubling of the LGB population in just ten years is testimony to an increasingly liberal and ‘diverse’ society in which people are more confident about ‘coming out’ as their true selves. As we are constantly told in advertisements for both commodities and politics, the ultimate goal of the individual is to ‘be the real you’. That, however, is not how either sexuality or ideology develop. The UK advertising industry wasn’t paid £36 billion last year to sell commodities or politics so we can become our true selves, but to become what companies and political parties want us to be: consumers and voters for their products, especially when that product is us. The statistics on the number of people in the UK identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, and, in particular, the huge disparity between such identifications in the old and the young — the latter of which are both more targeted by consumer advertising and more susceptible to its effects — point, unmistakably, to the role of ideology in encouraging and rewarding sexual identities that are not directed toward sexual reproduction.

Unfortunately, the Office for National Statistics doesn’t break these figures down by race, but I would guess that, given the homophobia among both Black and Asian communities in the UK, these figures are likely to be considerably higher among the White population. The percentage of young people, and particularly young women, who, at an age when they would previously be having children, that are instead identifying as lesbian, gay or even bisexual, points to a further and rapid decline in the birth rate of the White British population in the future. There are many reasons for the ‘queering’ of the British population, not least of which is the ease with which an electorate that defines itself not by its politics or actions but by its sexual identity — just like that electorate which defines itself by its race or religion — is manipulated; but this, undeniably, is an ideology promoted in furtherance of a depopulation agenda, and therefore to justify the policy of replacement immigration.

But the promotion of unreproductive sexualities is not the only ideology reducing the birth rates of the White British population. A concerted effort has been made to terrify potential parents into not having children or having fewer children because of the threat of climate change that has been elevated by environmental fundamentalists into a religious apocalypse. The White British population are, literally, killing their future in order to reduce their carbon footprint and in doing so supposedly ‘saving the planet’. And, indeed, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that a demographic that believes so fervently in its own destruction is a doomed demographic. But meanwhile, the demographic that is replacing them, as I looked at in Part One, and particularly from Muslim countries, is having three and even four children per woman. Once again, we have evidence of an ideology — adhered to with the fervency of religious dogma — targeted at reducing birth rates among the White British population of these Isles, and in particular at the young, middle-class women who make up the bulk of climate activists, while having no impact on immigrants and the children of immigrants from countries with very different religious and cultural beliefs. The future of the British people is being destroyed, just as the activists claim, but it’s not by global warming.

Roger Hallam, for example, the founder of Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil, is the head of a cult promulgating apocalyptic beliefs not shared by the British public; but with funding from globalists intent on impoverishing the UK, his cult has broken UK law with impunity for six years, in the commission of which it has terrorised and groomed vulnerable British children into joining its ranks. Indeed, in many ways this is the middle-class equivalent to the working-class children groomed by Muslim gangs that I looked at in Part One. In the guise of courses in ‘nonviolence training’, Hallam and his cult have indoctrinated British children into their apocalyptic beliefs, to which the latter then devote their lives and often ruin their futures with criminal records. The product of their death cult is a generation of hysterical children, too afraid of dying to live — for a future they have been told doesn’t exist. At a presentation at the World Web Forum held in Zurich in February 2020, Hallam told his audience of impressionable young followers:

‘What I want you to do is to enter that despair, that self contempt, that confusion, that feeling of being lost. I want you to look into hell. . . . Only when you look into the eyes of hell are you going to be able to deal with that hell. That’s the guiding philosophy behind Extinction Rebellion.’

Hallam is currently serving a 5-year sentence for conspiracy to cause a public nuisance for coordinating direct action protests on the M25 over four days in November 2022; but Just Stop Oil’s worst crime isn’t their repeated violation of the Highways Act 1980, or even promoting the globalist coup of UK sovereignty in the guise of the UN’s Agenda 2030: it’s their grooming of British children. Because of the freedom of religious belief under the Human Rights Act 1998 there’s no legislation regulating religious cults in the UK, except when it leads to sexual abuse; but we can start by identifying fundamentalist organisations like Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil as such. It takes a lot to make young people renounce their own future. A middle-class sense of entitlement is the foundation, with their children’s certainty of being right and contempt for other opinions; but this is the product of indoctrination. Is it any suprise that the young, middle-class, White girls indoctrinated into such apocalyptic and self-loathing beliefs are not having children; or that the young, middle-class, White boys who have taken refuge from the unrelenting attacks on masculinity by dressing in skirts and declaring themselves to be women aren’t fathering them?

Ideology, however, is only a part, and the lesser part, in determining why the White British population has stopped reproducing in numbers sufficient to ensure its own future. Woke ideology has had its greatest impact on the unfailingly gullible middle classes desperate for some meaning to their empty lives — even if that meaning has been manufactured by corporate globalists and sold to them by cultists preaching the End of the World. Fortunately, the UK population is still overwhelmingly working class in its composition, and its children are largely impervious to cults like Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil, the racism of Black Lives Matter or the misogyny of Trans. What is stopping them having children and reversing the replacement of the British people by immigrants isn’t ideology but poverty.

18. The Economics of Reproduction

As I showed in Part Two, immigration has contributed to keeping the household income before housing costs of the poorest fifth of the UK population — that fifth which immigrant workers have the greatest impact on — level since 2004, while the incomes of the middle classes and wealthiest have risen. That’s bad enough; but if we look at a longer timespan that takes into account escalating housing costs in the UK since immigration to the UK first trebled under Labour governments in the 1990s and then doubled under Conservative governments since the 2010s, the disposable real income of the poorest fifth of UK citizens has either fallen or stuttered, and even among the middle classes it has remained low until, under lockdown, it has fallen.

Straight or gay, convinced of the imminence of the End of the World or not, few people are going to have children without the financial security to raise them, the most important being a home in which to raise them. If they are living in their parents’ house, in shared accomodation with other adults, or need a double income to afford the rent or a mortgage on a property of their own, young people are not going to have children. Indeed, the high percentage of the UK’s social housing being used to house immigrants (20 percent in England, 47.6 percent in London), provides them with precisely the security required for them to reproduce in the numbers they are. For the natives of this country, in contrast, the average house price has risen from £2,263 in 1960 (the equivalent of £43,333 today when adjusted for inflation) to £262,902 in 2024, a 600 percent increase in real terms in 64 years. In the UK’s capital of replacement immigration, London, where 47.6 percent of socal housing tenants were born overseas, the average house-price is £507,000. And, once again, there is a correlation between the jump in house prices in the late 1990s and the steep rise in immigration.

I’m not arguing, however, that correlation here is proof of casuality. Immigration alone has not driven the vast increase in UK house prices beyond the reach of all but the wealthiest tranche of the middle classes and international investors in the UK property market. Rather, the transformation of the UK into a plutonomy, in which the pushing up of house prices has played such a key role — not least in the US subprime mortage crisis of 2007 and the Global Financial Crisis it caused — is the same transformation that is replacing the White British population in the UK with low-paid immigrant workers dependent on multinational corporations to employ them and the UK state to house and take care of them.

It’s difficult to measure the conditions of the working class in Britain when the term itself has been all but eradicated by an ideology that, under the Equality Act 2010, measures disadvantage by race, gender and sexuality and other protected characteristiscs of identity politics, but not by class. This September, however, the Social Mobility Commission reported that the percentage of children living in relative poverty after housing costs in the UK has increased from 27.1 percent in 2013 to 29.5 percent in 2023. In England it’s 30.2 percent of children, up from 27.5 percent in 2013. These may seem like small percentage increases, but they represent millions of children. In 2023, median household income for the poorest fifth of the population was £16,400, 2.4 percent below what it was before lockdown. The mean (average) household disposable income for the richest fifth of households (£82,900) was six times larger than the poorest fifth of households (£15,000); yet the mean weekly household expenditure was only twice as much, indicating the burden of housing costs on the British working class.

Incomes for those with children fell the most. Income inequality (measured by the Gini coefficient) after housing costs between the wealthiest fifth of the population and the poorest fifth has increased from 4.7 percent in 2003 to 5 percent in 2023. For a couple with two children under 14 in the lowest 10th percentile of wealth distribution before housing costs, the average disposable income in the year ending 2023 was £22,500. This compares to £16,100 for a couple with no children and £10,800 for a single adult. But since families require a higher level of household income to achieve similar living standards to childless and single households, to be in the top half of the income distribution in 2023, a single adult needed an annual household income over £21,700, compared to a couple with two children under 14, who required a combined annual household income over £45,400. This means that a single adult with an annual household income of over £42,900 would sit above the 90th percentile in wealth distribution in 2023, implying their income exceeded that of 90 percent of the UK population. In contrast, a couple with two children under 14 receiving the same level of combined annual household income would lie just below the middle of the income distribution and be considered to have slightly less than the average (median) household income.

As a measure of the inadequacy of low incomes to support starting a family in the UK, the percentage of household income coming from the state in the poorest first, second and third decile (10th) of income wealth was, respectively, 34 percent, 31 percent and 20 percent in households containing only working-age adults and no children; while for households with children it was 42 percent, 37 percent and 29 percent. As a consequence, 11 percent of the UK population lived in a household with low or very low food security in 2023, up from 7 percent the previous year. 3.4 percent of UK citizens lived in households that had used a foodbank in the previous 12 months. That’s over 2 million people in the UK having to use foodbanks to survive in the 6th biggest economy in the world. And in low-income households, this figure rose to 8 percent.

30 percent of children in the UK were living in households with relative low incomes after housing costs (60 percent and below median income), and 25 percent were living in households with absolute low incomes (60 percent below median incomes in 2011) after housing costs. In the UK, having children means living in poverty for millions of families. Respectively, 13 percent and 11 percent were living in relative and absolute low income households combined with child material deprivation from goods and services owned by the rest of the population. These latter include a winter coat, heating, access to fresh fruit, a dinner table for the family, the ability to pay bills or replace a broken refridgerator. 20 percent of working-age adults in the UK have relative low incomes after housing costs; and 17 percent of children in working families were in low income households. This is not an economic climate conducive to raising children, and one prohibitive for those at the lower end of the economic scale, which is overwhelmingly composed of the White British working class.

As a result, and as an indication of how much harder it has been made for the working class to raise children in the UK, 20 percent of adults in families with dependent children were in ‘higher professional’ occupations in 2022, up from 14 percent in 2014. 47 percent were in professional occupations (higher or lower) in 2022, up from 39 percent in 2014. In contrast, just 14 percent were in higher working-class occupations in 2022, down from 19 percent in 2014. And 34 percent were in working class occupations (both higher or lower) in 2022, down from 40 percent in 2014. These are extraordinary figures that should be of concern to everyone interested in the future of the UK. They show that the primary cause of the declining birth rate of the White British population is the poverty of the British working class, and that this has been manufactured and made progressively worse by successive UK governments.

Over the same historical period we looked at for declining birth rates, between 1964, when UK women had an average of 2.762 children, and 2024, when they have 1.755, income inequality (measured by the Gini coefficient) has increased from 26 percent to 35 percent in 2023, but from 28 percent to 39 percent after housing costs. While the percentage of UK citizens living in relative low income households has increased from 12 percent to 17 percent, but from 13 percent to 21 percent after household costs. Great as the decline in the birth-rate in the UK is, among the working class it is even greater; and since immigrants with far higher birth rates make up a large proportion of the UK working class, among the White working class the decline is catastrophic. All these figures point to an economic policy that is disincentivising the population of the UK — 74.4 percent of which was White British in the 2021 Census — from having children; and that the single greatest economic disincentive is the cost of housing.

Given which, the decades long reduction in the provision of council housing from 157,000 in 1964 to a barely credible 4,000 in 2023, selling off over 2 million council properties under the Right to Buy, demolishing over 224,000 council and housing association properties since 1998 under the estate regeneration programme, combined with the policy of using 2o percent of what little social housing we have left in England to house foreign nationals, and 10 percent to house immigrants arrived here since 2021, are all housing policies ultimately directed toward replacement immigration. Like the latter, this is not a conspiracy; this is policy.

19. Another Future

These, the statistics suggest, are the most influential of the myriad factors responsible for the rapid decline in the birth rate of the White British population. To them can be added the access of British women to female contraception under the National Health Service (Family Planning) Act 1967, the idea that women can only be ‘empowered’ by entering the marketplace and competing with men rather than raising children and creating a family, and the concomitant decreasing value placed on motherhood, and indeed on women themselves, the most misogynist manifestation of which is the ideology of transgenderism. More recently, especially among the White middle-classes educated to hate themselves, their history and the colour of their own skin, is the influence of the idea, disseminated by critical race theory, that White people are responsible for everything wrong with the world, now and throughout history, and should therefore be replaced as a race, one way or another, but most immediately by White people voluntarily not having children of their own.

But the enormous damage to our society caused by these sexist, misogynist and racist ideas, like the promotion of environmental fundamentalism, homosexuality and, most recently, transgenderism, are still reversible without, for example, subjecting British women to the status women have in Islam or children to the status they had in Victorian England. Between a woman clothed head to foot in a burka and the non-binary student protester proclaiming humans are killing the planet, or a man killing his daughter under Sharia law and a transvestite publicly calling for other men to assault women, there’s a wide range of actions that, without turning the British population into an experiment in social engineering, can reverse both our political colonisation and our demographic replacement.

The first, of course, is to draw an immediate halt to immigration in the UK; and, given the birth rates of the immigrant population already here, to begin repatriating immigrants: starting with every migrant that has arrived here illegally and has therefore already broken UK law; but including, if we are serious about stopping the replacement of the White British population, those who have demonstrated, loudly and clearly since their arrival, that they have no intention of integrating with the values, behaviours, beliefs, customs and laws of the UK. It should go without saying that any immigrant that commits a crime against the person of a UK citizen — the incidents of which, as I showed in Part Two, have increased sharply with replacement immigration — should be repatriated immediately, not imprisoned at the taxpayers’ expense for over £50,000 a year.

When it comes to the question of the effects of allowing a foreign religion hostile to Western liberalism to spread in the UK, the answer is less clear. Under Section 13 of the Human Rights Act 1998, every UK citizen has the right to freedom of religious beliefs; but when those beliefs take cultural or political forms that seek to replace that freedom with, for example, Sharia law; or to deprive British women of the freedom to walk alone in their own country without harassment or assault because that religion teaches its followers that White women are whores; or create an environment in which our children grow up with an increased likelihood of being stabbed or attacked by machete-wielding gangs of immigrants, then those beliefs must be exposed for the negative effects they are having on UK society rather than celebrated in festivals paid for by the British taxpayer and imposed on us by Muslim politicians, and denounced for the impact these beliefs are having on our safety and social unity rather than disseminated by our educational and cultural institutions. Repatriation is not enough if ideas hostile to British society and its citizens are permitted to grow in influence, as they have for thirty years under the ideology of multiculturalism, diversity and other justifications for replacement immigration.

The second action is to eradicate, through new legislation, the influence of woke ideology, not only on our cultural, sporting, medical and above all educational institutions, where it has already done incalculable damage to the mental and physical health of our children as well as to the freedom of expression and conscience of all UK citizens, but also in the policies, practices and legislation of our governmental bodies at local, municipal and national level. This means not only revoking racist and discriminatory Diversity, Equity and Inclusivity criteria in employment and work practices, but the even more destructive impact of Sustainable Development Goals and Environmental and Social Governance criteria on the economy of the UK.

The third action is the secession of the UK state from membership of the European Union, the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the World Economic Forum, and every other undemocratic, unaccountable, transnational technocracy that threatens or has already taken control of the governance of our nation — the most immediate being control over our borders and population — and to restore the sovereignty of the UK Parliament and its accountability to the British people. Neither our sovereignty nor our democracy should be held hostage to such interference in our politics by trade or security agreements, which is what the technocrats in Brussels have done. Indeed, as demonstrated by the recent example of the government of Italy stopped from repatriating illegal immigrants by its own courts by the precedence of a ruling by the European Court of Justice, member states of such transnational technocracies have lost control of their own countries. But such issues lie outside the reach of this already long study, to which, nonetheless, everything I have written here points.

And finally, although this will include numerous actions, the UK must reduce the cost of living for UK citizens, and above all for its increasingly and systematically impoverished White working class. As I have demonstrated, this must start with taking UK housing provision out of the hands of developers with no motivation to reduce house prices and outting it into the provision of state-owned enterprises dedicated to building homes to meet the needs of UK nationals, not the profits of developers, investors and speculators in the UK’s financalised housing market. But it extends, also, to bringing water supply, energy, social welfare, transport, education, the health service, the government, legislature, judiciary, financial sector, civil service, local authorities, police and prison services back into servicing the British people, rather than generating profits for stakeholders in the multinational consortiums that have privatised or are in the process of privatising them. Vast as the political and economic changes required to do this are, bringing them about is the condition on which the nation state we call the United Kingdom can be reclaimed by the British people from the multinational companies to which successive UK governments have sold it, and who have broken it up into so many assets and resources for sale on the global market.

As the statistics on the progressive immiseration of the UK working class show, we also need a radical change to how we pay our workers and tax their employers. This year, 8.2 million UK workers in the private sector were employed by 1,930 businesses with more than 1,000 employees. By permitting multinational companies to undercut small businesses by paying UK workers inadequate salaries, and then inadequately taxing those corporations on the profits the latter employ armies of accountants and lawyers to hide — with UK businesses currently stashing $1.2 trillion in tax havens — the burden on the taxpayer of supporting inadequately-paid workers not only when they are retired but throughout their working life increases, while at the same time depriving the state of the tax revenues for the increased pensions of those workers. Indeed, insofar as they increase the profits of multinationals at the cost of the British taxpayer, the UK’s salary and tax regimes parallel the economic goals of replacement immigration in the UK.

All of these actions, of course, will require, for a start, overthrowing the minority, extremist government of Keir Starmer, and replacing it with something that doesn’t yet exist, and which we will have to create: a government of the people, by the people, for the people, not the farcical model we have now, of a minority, extremist government enforcing the interests of its corporate masters on the will of the British people. We know what that will require — we have known it since lockdown, at least, when the government accorded itself the power to lock us in our homes and tell us what to inject in our bodies; but we have failed to bring it into existence. Four-and-a-half years later, we are still failing.

But there must be a positive side, as well, to this process of revaluation and economic incentivisation, which means revaluing parenthood, not only of mothers but of fathers too, and their duties to bring up their children, rather than abandoning them to the support of the state. And it means revaluing parenthood, childbearing and childrearing not only in a society that, under colonisation by woke ideology, has denigrated all three for decades with disastrous results, but also through financial incentives and social housing for young families. A society that denigrates and defunds what is, without a doubt, the most important task for its survival — the rearing of the children that are its future — is, by definition, a society that will fail. We are that society and we are failing; and as we are seeing demonstrated for all those with eyes to see, importing the children of other nations is a solution already many times worse than the problem.

Replacement immigration is not only of the English people, and with them, inevitably, the Welsh, Scottish and Irish peoples that are native to these Isles and have been their almost exclusive inhabitants throughout their long histories and beyond. As a drive down any high street in the UK will confirm, from Swansea to Edinburgh, Dublin to Sheffield, it is also the replacement of our different cultures, which have been almost entirely colonised by the monoculture of US consumerism; of our histories, which have been under attack by virulently anti-Western ideologues in our education, media and entertainment industries for decades; of our values — which, for better or worse, are Christian in origin, with pagan roots thrust deep into time. But, even more seriously for our future, it means the replacement of our political sovereignty.

Soon, England, and soon after that if not before, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, will be countries in which the White population are a minority. Our political system is already almost entirely governed by the orthodoxies of identity politics, which is aimed at empowering immigrants at the cost of impoverishing and disenfranchising the White British. It’s unlikely that the ruling class of the UK, Europe and the West, which is still overwhelmingly White — and which is forming itself, with the ruling classes of Africa, South Asia and the Middle East, into something like a World Government that this year convened under the banner of ‘Shaping Future Governments’ — will give up its power, even when presiding over European countries populated by African, South-Asian and Middle-Eastern peoples. But we, who will be even further separated from holding that power to account by the corporate capture of our institutions of governance, will lose all control over our own lives.

Identity politics and replacement immigration are two sides of the same coin, and they’ve both been relentlessly promoted by the Left since the governments of Tony Blair to legitimise extremist minority governments like that of Keir Starmer. Among the 20 percent of the UK electorate that voted in the 2024 general election, 39 percent of Asian voters, 50 percent of mixed-race voters, 46 percent of all ethnic-minority voters and 68 percent of Black voters voted for the Labour Party. To maintain his grip on power, all Starmer has to do is continue to flood the UK with more immigrants and fill Parliament with their representatives. Between us, the British people, and our rulers, will be a parliament of ‘diverse’ incompetents all equally obedient to the globalist masters who put them there, and fit only, as they showed themselves to be under lockdown, for rubber stamping the progressive removal of our rights and freedoms as UK citizens, our sovereignty as a nation state.

In many ways, this parliament will function much like the top 1,000 officials in the Indian Civil Service, who once ruled 300 million Indians on behalf of the British Empire, though that’s not quite accurate. The colonial model for the UK, as I discussed in Part Two, is not India or China but the USA, where the native population has been replaced by immigration and almost eradicated as a race, and where the immigrants are drawn into a polity by nothing more than the illusion of the ‘American Dream’. Our dream is the illusion of multiculturalism, which was never more than the manufactured ideology for the unregulated movement of people and capital between financial jurisdictions, and diversity, which tries to convince us that the catastrophe of the United States — a catastrophe both for its inhabitants (2 million of whom are in prison, 40 million of whom live in poverty), and for the rest of the world — is a model to which we in Europe should aspire. The facade of democracy will remain, as it does around the technocrats in Brussels and New York, but UK sovereignty will be what it has already, perhaps, become: the sad spectacle of the Mother of Parliaments reduced to an online game show for those who refuse to believe in the reality outside its walls.

Finally, and to bring these four articles to an end on a positive word, actions include talking. One of the responses to these articles is that we need more action and less talk. That words, words, words, as Hamlet reflected, will never kill the murderous king. He was right, but kings take a long time to kill. What we need is collective action agreed to by talking with each other, guided by discussion, determined through informed debate, not by the lies and insults and threats of ideologues. Talking is part of and indivisible from the solutions I have proposed in this article. As we saw under lockdown — or, more accurately, as we heard, as the institutional checks and balances to the replacement of our democracy by a constitutional dictatorship fell silent and obedient — when we stop talking and unthinkingly repeat what we are told to say, tyranny takes hold, not only of our society but of our words. It is not by chance that the United Nations, the European Commission, the World Health Organization, the World Economic Forum and every other technocracy are advancing new laws and technologies to monitor and silence our speech. Fascism, and the totalitarian system of surveillance and control it is in the process of erecting around, between and within us, always takes power in a pall of obedient silence, advances with the censorship of speech, and quickly criminalises all opinions other than its own. Talking is resistance, the communication of those searching for the basis of the actions that will reclaim our stolen country and the freedoms it once defended. These articles are my contribution to this discussion.

Simon Elmer