Legal Disclaimer
In October 2023 the Online Safety Act came into effect in the UK. Under this legislation, the providers of online platforms operating in the UK — including Amazon, Alphabet (Google, YouTube), Apple, ByteDance (TikTok), Meta (Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp), Microsoft (LinkedIn) and X Holdings Corp. (X) — have a duty and obligation to censor and impose restrictions on what we can and cannot say, write, watch, read and hear online. Corporate fines for non-compliance are set at up to £18 million or 10 per cent of global turnover. Censorship of the speech of UK citizens must be imposed in compliance with the dictates of the Office of Communications (OfCom) — which is the regulatory authority for the broadcasting and telecommunications industries of the UK, of the UK Government and, ultimately, of the transnational technocracies in which it has membership — including the United Nations, the European Union, the World Health Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which successive UK governments have granted authority over the freedom of speech of citizens of the United Kingdom.
Under Section 179 of the Act (‘False communications offence’), a person commits an offence if (a) the person sends a message that (b) conveys information that ‘the person knows to be false’, and (c) at the time of sending it, the person ‘intended the message or information in it to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience’, and (d) the person has ‘no reasonable excuse’ for sending the message.
However, under Section 180 of the Act, recognised news publishers, licensed broadcasters and all mainstream media outlets — including the British Broadcasting Corporation — cannot commit an offence under Section 179, legally absolving them from publishing what they know to be misinformation or even disinformation.
As someone not protected from arrest, prosecution and sentencing by Section 180, it is incumbent upon me, under Section 179, to state that (a) all the data compiled in my book has been published by the United Nations, the European Commission, the UK Government, the Ministry of Justice, the Office for National Statistics, the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Social Mobility Commission, The House of Commons Library, The House of Lords Library, the Resolution Foundation, Ipsos Mori, Statista, Wikipedia, and other news publishers recognised under the Online Safety Act 2023.
It is, therefore, (b) to the best of my knowledge, accurate and not false. In publishing it, my intent is to make known to the British public the official data about UK immigration. From this data, I draw tentative but logical conclusions that — unlike the UK Government and mainstream media, which have actively suppressed public debate — I invite the reader to interrogate and challenge.
By providing the empirical data for debate on a topic of national concern, (c) I do not intend to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to my audience — as the UK Government has done by threatening, arresting and imprisoning members of the UK public who raise their concerns either in demonstrations or online; nor do I have any reason to think that publishing this data or drawing my conclusions will cause such harm.
On the contrary, (d) my reason for communicating and analysing this data is to raise public awareness of the reality of replacement immigration, its policy origins, its corporate lobbying, its economic motivations, its ideological promotion, its political implementation, its legal enforcement, and of the impact it has already had and will have in the future on the British people and the United Kingdom.
In doing so, my aim is to provide a discursive framework within which the people of Britain can discuss immigration free of the accusations of racism, dismissals as a conspiracy theorist, charges of hate speech or threats of arrest with which this much-needed debate has been silenced and criminalised in the UK today.
1. Replacement Immigration
In part one of this article, ‘Immigration in the UK’, I looked at that statistics on immigration that show, hopefully incontrovertibly, that the British people are being replaced by immigrants, largely from the Indian subcontinent and sub-Saharan Africa. These are arriving in the UK not in small boats across the English Channel, but through passport control at Heathrow and other airports, at a rate of roughly three-quarters of a million immigrants per year since 2021. Notwithstanding the government’s campaign to stop smuggling gangs, this means the UK can expect to receive a population the size of Glasgow’s or larger every year for the foreseeable future. Not the least of the consequences of this immigration policy is that the White population of the UK, which currently makes up less than three-quarters of its inhabitants, can be expected to be a minority by 2050 at the latest. The UK, therefore, is undergoing something no other nation in the history of the world has undergone — although our fate is being shared by Germany, France, Sweden and other European nations; and that is to be conquered without having fired a shot in our defence by an ‘enemy’ — for that is how they are being deployed — that we have paid to conquer us.
This idea has come to be called the ‘Great Replacement’, and is not limited to the UK but applies to all Western countries. Denounced by Wikipedia as a ‘white nationalist far-right conspiracy theory’, the Great Replacement, in actuality, was laid out in a United Nations policy document that was published in 2000 under the title ‘Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?’.
The ostensible aim of this document is to address the declines in both the size and the working age of the populations of the West, and the burden this puts on the working-age population to support an increasingly large population of retired people. This is not a problem exclusive to the West, with China facing the same problem, largely as a result of the one-child policy instigated in 1980 as part of its economic reforms; but the UN policy paper limits its case studies to France, Germany, Italy, Russia, the United Kingdom, Europe and the USA, as well as Japan and the Republic of Korea. To address this problem, the paper proposes several scenarios, as follows.
The first scenario calculates the populations projected by the United Nations; the second calculates populations for the studied countries assuming zero migration; the third calculates the migration required to maintain the size of the population at the highest level in the absence of migration after 1995; the fourth calculates the migration required to maintain the size of the working population (age 15-64) at the highest level it would reach in the absence of migration after 1995; and the fifth scenario calculates the migration required to maintain the support ratio between the working-age population (15-64) and the retired population (age 65+) at the highest level it would reach in the absence of migration after 1995. It’s with the fifth scenario — which has the most extreme consequences for immigration, and which the other scenarios appear to be proposed in order to justify its implementation — that we should be concerned, because, as we shall see, it is this scenario that is being implemented.
Although it is not stated, all these scenarios take as given that the status quo in each of these countries remains the same, and that corporate profits are not restrained by the burden of government spending on supporting ageing populations and the higher corporate taxes this would require. On the contrary, as we shall see later, the purpose of replacement immigration is to increase those profits. The one scenario missing from the UN proposals, therefore, is to reduce the cost of living for the mass of the native populations under consideration. Instead, the solution to the problem of an ageing population has already been decided, and the authors of the report asked to calculate the numbers required to implement that solution. As with all immigration policy, which has always been justified by the claim of ‘labour shortages’, the purpose of the UN’s immigration policy is to increase the profits of capitalists through cheap labour maintained by undermining the ability of British workers to raise their standard of living through industrial action. This, and not the sudden conversion of UK governments to the ideology of multiculturalism, was behind the immigration policy that determined the different and growing waves of immigration into the UK since the Second World War.
Published in 2000, it is now apparent which of the five scenarios the United Nations selected to be implemented by the member nations on their native populations. The Office for National Statistics reported that, in the year ending December 2023, the UK let in 1,218,000 long-term immigrants, of which 1,031,000 (85%) were from non-EU countries. The previous year, 2022, 1,257,000 immigrants arrived, with 1,053,000 (84%) coming from non-EU countries. These figures equate to the most extreme Scenario (V) for the UK, according to which the UN paper states:
‘Scenario V keeps the potential support ratio at its 1995 level of 4.09. Keeping this ratio would require 59.8 million migrants between 1995 and 2050, slightly more than one million migrants a year on average. The overall population would reach 136 million in 2050, of which 80 million (59%) would be post-1995 immigrants or their descendants.
‘The number of migrants needed to keep the population in working-age constant are about twice the level of the past decade [the 1990s]. Scenario V, keeping the potential support ratio constant, would demand more than one million immigrants annually. This would greatly exceed immigration rates that the country experienced in the past.’ [my italics]
In the accompanying table, the exact figure for the number of immigrants to the UK between 2000 and 2025 is 23,687,000, at an average rate of 947,000 per year; and between 2025 and 2050 some 36,035,000 immigrants at an average rate of 1,441,000 per year. This makes a total immigration population since 1995 of 59,775,000, out of a projected population of 136,138,000, exactly doubling the population of the UK today over the next quarter of a century. Of these, 26,299,000 will be under the age of 15; 88,239,000 will be of working age (15-64), supporting 21,600,000 people 65 and older, a support ratio of 4.09.
It is possible, therefore, logically to conclude — hopefully without incurring charges of hate speech by the UK’s courts — that this extreme scenario, exceeding anything the British people have ‘experienced in the past’, explains the number of immigrants being brought into the UK, the issuing of over 200,000 work permits to immigrants in 2023, and even the age and sex of those illegal immigrants permitted to arrive by small boats across the English channel.
And yet, despite the evidence of this document and the sharp rise in immigration in the UK and across the West it has determined, in March 2024 the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Turk, an Austrian lawyer personally appointed by the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, described the Great Replacement as a ‘conspiracy theory’, as ‘delusional’, as ‘racist’, as a ‘war on woke’, a ‘war on inclusion’, and — very much as Keir Starmer has done — as directly influencing ‘perpetrators of violence’, finally asserting that ‘multiculturalism is the history of humanity’. This is the sort of rhetoric we’re used to hearing from middle-class students holding SWP placards proclaiming ‘Refugees welcome’. That it is being repeated by such a senior jurist at the United Nations is an indicator of how forcefully — to the extent of equating its repetition with incitement to violence — the globalists want to bury this document and its implications for the Western world.
A UN policy document itself, however, isn’t enough to change immigration into the UK and other countries in the West to the current levels. How was it written and by whom, and how did it come to override national policy? As always, the best place to start is with the banks.
2. Elites and Immigrants
Citigroup Inc. is a US multinational investment bank and financial services corporation that has its headquarters in New York City. Citigroup owns Citicorp, the holding company for Citibank, as well as several international subsidiaries. As of June 2024, Citigroup was ranked third on the list of the largest banks in the United States of America, with $2.405 trillion in assets. Alongside JPMorgan Chase ($4.143 trillion), Bank of America ($3.257 trillion) and Wells Fargo ($1.94 trillion), Citigroup is one of the Big Four banks that, in 2018, together held about 45% of all US customer deposits (since dropped to 35%), and with combined assets, in 2024, of more than $11.745 trillion. Citigroup is rated by the Financial Stability Board as a Systemically Important Financial Institution, and as such is on the list of systemically important banks that are regarded as ‘too big to fail’ (TBTF). Popularised in the 1980s and applied most ruinously during the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2008, TBTF is a theory popular in banking and finance that asserts that certain corporations, and particularly financial institutions, are so large and interconnected that their collapse would be disastrous for the global financial system, and that they should therefore be bailed out by the governments of nation states with the taxes of their populations.
Citigroup is also one of the nine global investment banks in the Bulge Bracket, the world’s largest global investment banks that mostly serve large corporations, institutional investors and governments. As such, they are the inventors of new financial products, such as mortgage-backed securities, credit default swaps, collateralised debt obligations and, most recently, carbon emission trading. In 2024, Citigroup was ranked 21st on the Fortune 500 list of the largest United States corporations by total revenue for their respective fiscal years. With over 200 million customer accounts in more than 160 countries, Citigroup is mainly owned by institutional investors, with the three largest shareholders in June 2024 being the Vanguard Group (8.8% of shares), BlackRock (8.36%) and State Street Corporation (4.3%). Today, Citigroup has around 239,000 employees, although it had 357,000 before the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2008, when it was rescued through one of the largest bailout packages in US history.
Two years before, in a leaked report titled ‘Plutonomy: Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances’, which was distributed to their investor clients in 2005, a team of global strategists at Citigroup wrote an analysis of the global distribution of wealth and consumers. In it they stated that global imbalances had grown to such an extent that they were justified in dividing the world into ‘plutonomies’ — by which they mean countries where economic growth is powered by and largely consumed by the wealthy few — and the rest of the world. The authors cited data showing that the top 1% of households in the US economy accounted for about 20% of the total income in the year 2000, which was roughly equal to the share of the bottom 60% of households put together. Moreover, in terms of wealth, the data demonstrated even greater inequality:
‘The top 1% of households also account for 33% of net worth, greater than the bottom 90% of households put together. It gets better (or worse, depending on your political stripe) — the top 1% of households account for 40% of financial net worth, more than the bottom 95% of households put together.’
Far from proposing economic policies to reduce this inequality, the authors of the report, as one would expect of financial advisors, advocated maintaining the unequal distribution of wealth:
‘Society and governments need to be amenable to disproportionately allow/encourage the few to retain that fatter profit share. The Managerial Aristocracy, like in the Gilded Age, the Roaring Twenties, and the thriving Nineties, needs to commandeer a vast chunk of that rising profit share, either through capital income, or simply paying itself a lot.’
The authors went on to observe that, in industrialised countries, there is a relationship between income concentration (plutonomy) and household savings rates, such that the latter tend to fall in plutonomies. All of which brings the authors to the point of their report, which is their new conception of the wealth of nations and wealth accumulation by what have come to be called ‘high-net-worth individuals’:
‘So, Plutonomies exist, and explain much of the world’s imbalances. There is no such thing as the “US Consumer” or “UK Consumer”, but rich and poor consumers in these countries, with different savings habits and different prospects. The rich are getting richer; they dominate spending. Their trend of getting richer looks unlikely to end anytime soon. How do we make money from this theme?’
So, what has this got to do with replacement immigration? According to the report, there were three plutonomies in 2004, the USA, the UK and Canada, and it is towards their model of inequality that the rest of the West is heading, and with accelerated speed after the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-08 and the lockdown of the global economy between 2020 and 2022. Where the report becomes relevant to the issues I am addressing here is that it identifies six key drivers that are well-imbedded in all plutonomies:
- An ongoing technology/bio-technology revolution
- Capitalist-friendly governments and tax regimes
- Globalisation that re-arranges global supply chains with mobile, well-capitalized elites and immigrants
- Greater financial complexity and innovation
- The rule of law
- Patent protection
By now, we should understand why elites well-capitalised by a fiat economics built on unlimited credit are both a requirement and a product of plutonomies; how these elites are protected by the increasing complexity and innovation of financial products; how their immense accumulation of wealth funds capitalist-friendly governments and tax regimes; how these corporate-compliant governments make laws to increase the power and protect the profits of this financial elite; and how technological innovation — most recently in the form of the new technologies of biopower (smartphones, QR-codes, facial recognition, 15-minute cities, ULEZ cameras, AI surveillance, digital identity, Central Bank Digital Currency, carbon apps, etc.) — is transforming the relation between the individual and the state into a new, digital totalitarianism. Or, at least, we should understand this if we have been observing the Great Reset of Western capitalism that has been implemented under the guise of numerous ‘crises’ manufactured to do just that.
But the question I want to answer here is what role immigrants — also well capitalised — play (for they are moved like pawns on the globalist chessboard) in re-arranging global supply chains in furtherance of all the above. There’s a clue in what Citigroup refers to in its report as ‘insourcing’ labour through ‘mass immigration’, which, they add, ‘might price domestic workers out of jobs’. Indeed, Citigroup singles out the UK and Ireland for praise for being the only EU countries to allow ‘full and free labour movement’ from the newly accessioned countries in Eastern Europe into their labour markets.
I look at the economic motivation for replacement immigration and its mechanism for reducing labour costs for multinational corporations in greater detail in my book, The Great Replacement: Conspiracy Theory or Immigration Policy? But to answer this question fully, we first need to look at how these elites use their vast wealth to change and write policy, not only at the level of national governments but — under the new paradigm of stakeholder capitalism — of transnational technocracies that are dictating terms to those we elect to govern our countries, and in doing so have changed the nature and locus of power in the West.
3. Migration Governance and Enforcement
The Open Society Foundations (OSF) is a US-based funding network founded by the billionaire, George Soros, and a major financial supporter of US immigration policy reform. An internal document leak from May 2016 revealed that, in order to gain influence over migration policy and discussions within the United Nations, the OSF’s International Migration Initiative had provided support for the drafting of the Columbia Global Policy Initiative (CGPI). Specifically, the leaked document, titled ‘Migration Governance and Enforcement’, concluded that the CGPI had been able to ‘take advantage of momentum created by the current [refugee] crisis to shape conversations about rethinking migration governance’. This set the template for concealing the economic reasons for replacement migration behind a facade of concern for refugees seeking asylum from war-torn countries.
The author of the report, Peter Sutherland, a lawyer by training and banker by profession, was at the time the UN Special Representative on Migration to Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General of the United Nations between 2007 and 2016. Before that, Sutherland had been Chairman of Goldman Sachs International (1995-2015); served on the steering committee of the Bilderberg Group (2010-2014); was Chairman of the European division of the Trilateral Commission (2001-2010); Vice-Chairman of the European Round Table of Industrialists (2006-2009), a Director of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group (2001-2008) until the UK Government took it over with taxpayer funds during the Global Financial Crisis; Chairman of British Petroleum (1997-2009); Director-General of the World Trade Organization (1993-95); Chairman of Allied Irish Banks (1989-1993); European Commissioner for Competition (1985-89); as well as holding numerous other positions. He was, in other words, one of the 6,000 or so people who constitute the global power elite who, arguably, wield more power than any national government.
As demonstration of which, the previous year, in ‘Rebuilding the Asylum System’, George Soros had argued that the EU and USA combined should provide €20 billion per year for the housing, healthcare, education and training of refugees, and that Europe ‘has to accept at least a million asylum-seekers annually for the foreseeable future’. To put this into context, in 2022, just seven years later, 5.1 million immigrants from non-EU countries entered the European Union, 2.67 million to Germany alone; so Soros’s estimate of €20 billion per year for 1 million immigrants in 2015 is closer to €100 billion per year today, and that’s not including the 764,000 net immigration to the UK that year. Immigration, in other words, is a trillion-dollar industry, and its goals, as such, are not the sudden conversion of Western governments to the multiform benefits of ‘diversity’ but those Citigroup identified as being served by the capitalisation of both elites and immigrants to rearrange global supply chains.
That same year, Open Society Foundations, via Peter Sutherland, successfully lobbied for migration to be adopted into the Sustainable Development Goals of the UN’s Agenda 2030. In particular, under Goal 10, to ‘Reduce inequality within and among countries’, Target 10.7 committed member states to ‘facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies’. Referring to the political capital Sutherland was able to leverage within the United Nations, the OSF document concluded: ‘the gamble has arguably paid off’.
Together, the funding from Soros and lobbying by the CGPI proved successful, ultimately leading, in September 2016, to the Barack Obama/United Nations New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, and the commissioning of what became known as the ‘Sutherland Report’ on ‘Globalization and Interdependence’. Published in February 2017, this contained 16 recommendations for managing migration better through international cooperation, with the goal of a global migration compact by 2018. Under the following five categories, these recommendations include:
A. Managing crisis-related movements and protecting migrants
- Develop global guiding principles on migrants in vulnerable situations, including defining what that means, what international legal frameworks and instruments apply to them, and how gaps in national legislation can be addressed.
2. Expand access to consular protection and assistance in transit, including expanding ‘migrants’ access to social, health and legal services’.
3. Expand legal pathways for people fleeing countries in crisis; including resettlement of migrants by private sponsors.
B. Building opportunities for labour and skills mobility
4. Reduce recruitment costs and abuses of migrant workers, to which end governments must ‘align national laws, policies and regulations, bilateral and multilateral agreements, and voluntary codes of conduct’ with the International Labour Organization’s ‘General principles and operational guidelines for fair recruitment’; ‘monitor and enforce compliance with recruitment regulations’ by both employers and recruiters; and offer ‘comprehensive services, including training and skills certification, job placement and travel arrangements’.
5. Strengthen the architecture to govern labour mobility, including the establishment of a ‘global multi-stakeholder platform on skills and mobility for employment’.
C. Ensuring orderly migration, including return
6. Improve access to information and visa facilitation; including setting ‘clear and transparent admission targets by visa category’.
7. Develop global principles on return, readmission and reintegration.
D. Fostering migrants’ inclusion and development
8. Ensure access to, and portability of, earned social benefits, meaning migrants can take social security entitlements earned in the host country with them when they leave, and guaranteeing a ‘basic level of social security’.
9. Improve remittance markets and financial inclusion in accordance with the first Goal of Agenda 2030, by making it easier for migrants to access financial services.
10. Foster inclusion by equipping migrants with a proof of legal identity, specifically, a ‘universal digital ID system’ that would be required in order to ‘perform transactions or use public or private services across different countries’, and which will be ‘linked to important personal information (e.g. a birth or marriage certificate, transcripts, vaccination and credit records)’.
E. Strengthening migration governance capacities
11. Invest in state capacities to manage migration, to which end the report recommended a Financing Facility for Migration that will ‘channel funding’ not only from member states of the UN but also from ‘international financial institutions, development banks and private sector actors’ in order to meet the obligations of Agenda 2030.
12. Improve data for fact-based migration policies and accountability, to which end transnational technocracies like the United Nations, the International Organization for Immigration, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank will increase the institutional capacities to ‘collect, store, analyse and disseminate migration data’; and with that data monitor compliance of nation states with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
13. Foster inclusive national debate and policy coherence on migration, to which end ministries and agencies will confer with ‘local governments and immigrant community leaders’ to ensure ‘alignment of policy goals and objectives’ on ‘development, migration, interior and foreign affairs’. In particular, the report calls on international organisations to ‘educate their constituencies about migration, facilitate international dialogue among parliamentarians on this topic, and foster their engagement in the consultations on the global migration compact’.
14. Empower cities and local governments, including the developing ‘the functions and tools required to manage greater diversity’ and a ‘comprehensive management and leadership development programme for city administrations’.
15. Repurpose the Global Forum on Migration and Development to ‘support consensus-building on an ambitious global compact on migration and to advance the implementation of the migration-related commitments in the 2030 Agenda’; serving as a platform ‘where governments and other stakeholders report on their efforts to fulfil SDG commitments’ to the UN's High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development. To this end, the report suggests the GFMD ‘may also want to consider governance reforms to encourage genuine joint ownership by States, civil society and the private sector’.
16. Strengthen UN leadership and capacities on migration, according to which 1) future crisis events will be the ‘new normal’; 2) the UN will ‘speak with one voice’; 3) the UN will measure and monitor the implementation of SDGs by nation states; 4) the UN will support the development of ‘soft law’, by which they mean ‘common standards and principles’ of conduct; and 5) work towards ‘new international norms and treaties’.
If you’re wondering why it is that every political party, politician, government organisation, media platform, educational, cultural and sporting institution have all signed up, with one voice, to the dogma of replacement immigration, and how Diversity, Equity and Inclusivity criteria have been made a requirement of every employment contract, this document, and particularly recommendations 13-16, goes some way to explaining how such uniform consensus has been created in such a short period of time.
With migration now woven into the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, and with the Sutherland report on ‘Globalization and Interdependence’ released, this paved the way, in 2018, for the adoption of two new global compacts at the UN level: the ‘Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration’ (July 2018) and the ‘Global Compact on Refugees’ (December 2018). And since the vast majority of this immigration is into Europe, on 23 September the European Union dutifully agreed to the ‘Pact on Migration and Asylum’, a set of new rules managing migration and establishing a common asylum system at EU level.
In the conclusion to his report, Peter Sutherland — who was born in Ireland, which appears to be a testing ground for replacement immigration, with 22 per cent of the population foreign-born as of last year — wrote:
‘Attending to the concerns of those who feel threatened by migration is necessary, if we are to avoid destructive reactions and achieve sustainable results. Confrontation will get us nowhere. Progress on international cooperation in this area must take the interests of all legitimate actors into account. As long as there are stakeholders for whom the system is not working, they will at best ignore it or worse, undermine it. Listening to each other, seeking tirelessly to identify shared goals and to agree on paths for reaching them, will — I am convinced— enable us to find solutions that hold out hope for us all.’
Unfortunately, nobody appears to have told the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, or the Prime Minister of the UK, or any of the other leaders of the countries on whom Scenario V of the Replacement Migration model are being imposed without a referendum by the native populations whose taxes are paying for it and, despite Sutherland’s call for transparency, almost entirely without our knowledge. Either that or, more likely, the native populations of the host countries are not regarded as ‘legitimate actors’ or ‘stakeholders’ worthy of seat at the table of stakeholder capitalism calling itself the United Nations.
As Sutherland’s 16 recommendation should make abundantly clear, the various policies, initiatives, agendas, goals, targets, declarations and pacts on immigration that have been funded and drafted by corporate globalists and agreed to by the leaders of the member states of the United Nations and the European Union are targeted at taking ownership and management of migration and border control away from the nation-state and handing their control over to the unelected and unaccountable transnational technocracies intent on forming themselves into a new World Government. Specifically, they bring control of national borders and the flow and routes of migration into the control of the International Organization for Migration (IoM), which — like the World Health Organization, the International Labour Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — is a corporate-lobbied and funded agency of the United Nations, and the leading international organisation for the management of global migration, with 172 member states, including, of course, the United Kingdom.
Indeed, it was Peter Sutherland who was instrumental in bringing the IoM under the control of the UN, something he described in his report as ‘until quite recently was unthinkable, but is long overdue, and should strengthen both the IOM and the UN’. Replacement immigration, in other words, is part of the Great Reset of Western capitalism, which is why every government, as we are seeing in the UK, no matter what political party forms it in what country, continues to implement it on the orders of the transnational technocracies whose corporate members govern the West, and whose profit margins the immigrant labour force exists to protect and increase.
But is that all it does? In their conclusions to the leaked Open Society Foundations document on ‘Migration Governance and Enforcement’, the authors write:
‘With the rise of the radical right and growing intolerance toward migrants, the space to design and influence rational migration policies is increasingly constrained. Many of our partners are well-positioned to analyze and produce evidence bases for policy solutions, or to advocate for protections, but traditional arguments are not working. It is worth re-examining methods of influencing and experimenting with framings and argumentation, both at elite and popular levels.’
In the rest of my book, I examine why it is that transnational technocracies directed by the global elite and funded by multinational corporations are so intent on influencing, governing and enforcing replacement immigration on the West, to what ends, and what the consequences are for the UK — already and in the future.
Simon Elmer is the author of The Great Replacement: Conspiracy Theory or Immigration Policy? (2024), from which this article is taken. His recent books include The Great Reset: Biopolitics for Stakeholder Capitalism (2023), and The Road to Fascism: For a Critique of the Global Biosecurity State (2022).
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the researchers behind the anonymous social-media accounts, whose anonymity I shall respect, who drew my attention to the UN policy document on ‘Replacement Migration’. In particular, I acknowledge the X account, @Restitutor_, for alerting me to the leaked Open Society Foundations document on ‘Migration Governance and Enforcement’, to the Peter Sutherland report on ‘Globalization and Interdependence’, and for pointing out the adoption of immigration policy into the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
