Replacement Immigration. Part One: A Two-Tier State

1. An Extremist, Minority Government

In Part Two of The Road to Wigan Pier, first 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, Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, was the man to lead us through it.

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was elected on 4 July, 2024 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. So although he is Prime Minister of the UK, Starmer has no popular support for what he is doing and will do to the UK, let alone to criminalise the White British 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 last 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 in 2023 — at which he promised a closer 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, his authorisation of the use of UK-made long-range missiles against Russia, 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 faced as Prime Minister.

2. 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 last 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 and war criminal, 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 us 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 the Special Operations Room of the Metropolitan Police Service, meeting members of the reviled Territorial Support Group (TSG) riot police, 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, 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 have documented in my book, 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 smartphone footage of one of the counter-demonstrations by Muslim men last August, a bearded man, perhaps an imam, was recorded leading a crowd of armed Muslims in repeated cries of ‘Allahu Akbar!’; yet in another piece of footage taken the same day and perhaps within minutes, 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?

In the decade between 2015 and 2024, 9.081 million long-term immigrants entered the United Kingdom. Of these, 3,018,000 were from nations within the European Union, of which 2,298,000 million emigrated, with the rate increasing dramatically after the 2016 Brexit vote, for a net immigration of 720,000 EU immigrants in 10 years. In contrast, 5,317,000 of these immigrants came from nations outside the European Union. 3,887,000 came since Brexit came into force in 2020, that is, in just the last five years. None came from countries that are at war. None of them are refugees. Net migration into the UK — that is, the number of immigrants minus the number of emigrants — between 2015 and 2024 was 3,961,000. However, 3,747,000 of these were from countries outside the EU. In addition to 2.29 million Europeans emigrating, 506,000 British citizens left the UK over the same decade. These, irrefutably, are the figures of replacement immigration.

More concerning even than these numbers is where the immigrants replacing the British and European people have come from. Between 2021 and 2024, 850,000 immigrants came to the UK from India, 392,000 came from Nigeria, 256,000 came from Pakistan, 94,000 came from Bangladesh, 86,000 came from Zimbabwe and 77,000 came from Ghana. That’s 1.755 million immigrants from the Indian subcontinent and sub-Saharan Africa in just 4 years. In my book, I analyse this data to show that these, and the roughly 1 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 document in detail in my book, 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 last 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 British 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 more than 150,000 fighting-age men from mostly Muslim countries that have been permitted to enter the UK illegally without wives or families between 2018 and 2025. 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.

And 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 Britain is a racist country and the British a racist people. Now, unsurprisingly, 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. Today, there are 4 million Muslims in the UK, over half of whom were born here and yet who remain followers of a fundamentalist religion that commands its followers to conquer foreign countries and convert or kill non-believers. 533,000 Muslims in the UK were born in Pakistan, 250,000 in Bangladesh. There are a further 177,000 Muslims here from Somalia and 80,000 from Yemen. It is not surprising that it is these particular countries from which the vast majority of Muslims come. This year alone, the UK Government will hand £69 million of British taxpayers money in ‘foreign aid’ to Pakistan, £58 million to Bangladesh, £98 million to Somalia and £101 million to Yemen.

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 British 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 British 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 British 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 Britain, including gang-rape hundreds of thousands of English children, and the police will protect you; while if you’re British 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, 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 in which the native population of White Britons are second-class citizens, expected and required to pay for the destruction of our country, the rewriting of our history, the criminalisation of our culture and the replacement of our people.

3. Managing Resistance

In his article on ‘Migration for the benefit of all’ that I analyse in Chapter Two of my book — in which ‘all’ turned out to exclude the native workers of the host nation whose wages are depressed, whose taxes are raised and whose public services are overburdened by replacement immigration — the capital fund manager, 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. Currently, many of the world’s more advanced host economies are run by democratically elected governments, leaving little question that productivity increases achieved through migrant labour will not be welcomed by electorates, unless they are achieved without regressive redistributive effects.’

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 ‘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. 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 British people — largely but not exclusively from the working class — concerned about what is happening to our country to 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 of London stockbroker. 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 British middle classes, their obedience to authority, their embarrassment at being White, their hatred of Britain, 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 150,000 immigrants that have come here illegally since 2018 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 an ethnic minority in their own country and tell them it’s for the greater good. For publishing this data on UK immigration, I have already been denounced by members of the Left as ‘racist’, ‘far-Right’, ‘hateful’, ‘bigoted’, an ‘extremist’, ‘fascist’ and ‘ethno-nationalist’. One of the aims of my book, however, is to try and move the debate (or lack of it) about mass immigration away from questions about race — as though the globalists moving millions of immigrants into the West care anything about the colour of their skin — and into a discussion about the impacts it is having, socially, economically and politically. But 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 British history has been reduced by woke pedagogy disseminated through our educational and cultural industries — must therefore be expiated by the ethnic cleansing of Britain, 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 Britain.

In The Road to Wigan Pier, from which I quoted in Part One of this article, George 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 Britain 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 last August under the title ‘Fixing the Foundations’, Keir Starmer described the millions of British 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 of my fellow Britons, I also don’t believe that the immigrants permitted to roam the streets of Britain 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 British people and enjoy housing, jobs and benefits paid for with the taxes of the British people while denouncing those same British 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 British 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 British working class for appealing to the increasing number of Black and Asian immigrants. Among the 20 percent of the UK electorate that voted in the 2024 general election, 39 percent of Asian voters, 46 percent of all ethnic-minority voters, 50 percent of Mixed-race voters and 68 percent of Black voters voted for the Labour Party. 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 last year’s General Election, 90 are Black or Asian, 25 are Muslims (including many Islamists), 10 are Jewish (most of whom are Zionists), 263 are women, and 64 identify as LGBTQ+ (most of whom are advocates of Transgenderism). 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, sexual practices or fanciful beliefs about human biology?

Behind its ill-advised triumphalism 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 present one 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.

Simon Elmer is the author of The Great Replacement: Conspiracy Theory or Immigration Policy? (2024), from which this article is taken. His recent books include The Housing Crisis: Finance, Legislation, Policy, Resistance (2025), The Great Reset: Biopolitics for Stakeholder Capitalism (2023), and The Road to Fascism: For a Critique of the Global Biosecurity State (2022).