The Impact of Replacement Immigration: Part 1. The Economics of Diversity

1. Diversity is Our Weakness

As one of the more than half-a-million British nationals who have emigrated from the UK over the past decade, I’ve been living in Hong Kong since January 2024, with several months of that time spent travelling in mainland China; and among the many impressions the country has made on me, I’ve been struck by the level of social cohesion that exists here. It is, by some way, the safest place I’ve ever lived in the world. It’s a common sight to see a young woman walking alone at night in areas of Hong Kong or Guangzhou that would be a no-go zone in the UK without fear or concern for her personal safety; and the physical conflict and verbal abuse I experienced every time I left my homes in London are a collector’s item here. But even below this basic requirement of a civilised society, the respect the Chinese have for the public realm — a respect we once had in the UK, in a different way, and have now lost, the politeness and maturity of Chinese children compared to the feral behaviour of their Western equivalents, and the commitment the Chinese citizen has to China, are all things I’ve never seen to such a degree and extent in the other countries I’ve visited.

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

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

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

• In Poland, with a population of 38 million, 98.6 percent are Polish. Following the proxy-war in the Ukraine, about 960,000 Ukrainians were resident in September 2023. Although the obedience of its recently-elected Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, to NATO and the European Commission indicates a change for the worse in the future, the crime rate in 2025 is 30.7 per 100,000 people. 
• In Hungary, with a population of 9.6 million, 93.5 percent are Hungarian, 3.2 percent Romani, 1.9 percent German. Under the long-time Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, the EU leader most critical of NATO and the European Commission, the crime rate is 33.7 per 100,000.
• In Romania, with a population of 19 million, 89.3 percent are Romanian, 6 percent are Hungarian, and 3.4 percent are Roma, although following the recent rigged election of the European Commission’s approved president, Nicușor Dan, this is bound to change. The crime rate is 33.7 per 100,000.
• And in Russia, with a population of 147 million, 80.85 percent are Russian. The other ethnic groups are indigenous to their respective regions, with Tartars making up 3.62 percent, Chechens 1.29 percent and Bashkirs 1.21 percent. The crime rate is 39.1 per 100,000 people.

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

• Germany, with a population of 84 million, doesn’t keep official records of ethnicity, but it is estimated that 71.3 percent of the population are German, 3.4 percent Turkish, 2.6 percent Polish, 1.6 percent Russian, 1.6 percent Kazakhs, and a barely credible 19.5 percent of unidentified ethnicity. 13.9 million are immigrants, of which 15.7 percent are unemployed. In 2023, 522,700 immigrants were claiming benefit under the Asylum Seekers’ Benefits Act. The crime rate is 38.9 per 100,000 people.
• England, with a population of 57 million, according to the Census of 2021 was 73.5 percent English, 9.7 percent Asian, 4.2 percent Black, and 2.9 percent Mixed-race. Since then, over 2.4 million immigrants have been added to the population of the UK, the vast majority in England, all of them from outside Europe. The crime rate in the UK is 47.4 per 100,000.
• Sweden, with a population of 10.5 million, also doesn’t keep official records of ethnicity, but 25.9 percent of the current population were either born in another country or born in Sweden to parents from another country. This figure rises to 33.5 percent for people with one foreign-born parent; and by 2050, more than half the population is predicted to be immigrants or the children of immigrants. By 2065, the native population is set to become a minority, the Western population to fall to 63 percent, and the Muslim population to increase to 25 percent. Once known for having one of the lowest crime rates in the world, Sweden’s disastrous immigration policies have pushed the crime rate to 48.4, with the death rate from gun crimes now the second highest in Europe; and the rate of reported sexual violence (200.34 per 100,000 inhabitants) by some way the highest in Europe.
• And France, with a population of 68.3 million, also doesn’t keep official records of ethnicity, but in 2020 it was 76.9 percent French, 2.2 percent Algerian and Moroccan Berber, 1.5 percent Moroccan Arab and 1.3 percent Algerian Arab. Since then, however, well over 1.5 million immigrants have migrated from North Africa. The crime rate is 55.3 per 100,000 people.

Not the least interesting aspect of these figures is that, although crime is overwhelmingly a product of poverty, Sweden (with a GDP per capita in 2023 of $55,517 according to the World Bank), Germany ($54,343), the UK ($49,464) and France ($44,691) are all significantly wealthier than Poland ($22,057), Hungary ($22,142), Romania ($18,404) and Russia ($13,817); yet the latter’s crime rates (30.7, 33.7, 33.7 and 39.1 per 100,000 of the population) are all, except for Russia — and then only marginally compared to traditionally law-abiding Germany — lower than their far wealthier neighbours (38.9, 47.4, 48.4 and 55.3). Is it merely a coincidence that ethnic homogeneity in the former countries (98.6, 93.5, 89.3 and 80.85 percent native) is also higher than the latter countries (71.3, 73.5, 80.4 and 76.9 percent)? Is there, in other words, a causal connection between immigration and crime?

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

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

Even during the day, when the London roundabout might briefly be free of such crime, the mix of motorists, bikers and cyclists entering from the half-dozen arteries would guarantee a stream of verbal abuse regularly breaking into physical conflict. Every pillar of the underpass would be fixed with a CCTV camera, every wall covered with warning signs threatening retribution from the police for ‘anti-social’ behaviour. But no police would be there, busy as they are spying on our social media posts, and anyone trying to report a mugging or sexual assault would be ignored. When a Black or Asian man was involved in any altercation, there would be a sharply raised likelihood that they would leave their cars to attack each other with a range of weapons kept in the trunk; something, perhaps, like the scenario that occurred last April in Whitechapel in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, in which a Black man on a rented bike and an Asian man in a car brought traffic on the Commercial Road to a standstill while they fought each other like children in a school playground. It is surely not a coincidence that Whitechapel is not only the most densely-populated borough in England with the fastest-growing population but that it also has the largest Muslim population (39.9 percent); or that, in the 2021 Census, 44.5 percent of the population was Asian (34.6 percent Bangladeshi, the largest such population in England), 7.4 percent were Black and 5 percent were Mixed-race, with White British, at 22.9 percent, a minority in their own country.

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

In anticipation of the knee-jerk response of pretty much every Westerner to whom I have spoken about this in the past, the social cohesion of the Chinese does not come from fear of state surveillance. Globally, it is estimated there are around 1 billion CCTV cameras spying on us, and 7.5 million of them are in the UK. With a population of 69.55 million, that’s 1 camera for every 9 UK citizens. By comparison, China, with an estimated 200 million CCTV cameras for a population of 1.4 billion, has 1 camera for every 7 Chinese citizens. But it’s the USA that is at the forefront of the surveillance of its population of 347 million people, with 50 million cameras, or 1 camera for every 6.5 citizens. China’s comparative social harmony, therefore, is not reducible to the surveillance apparatus of the state, or the USA would be the most harmonious, law-abiding and socially conscientious country in the world, which as I will show in the next section, it most certainly is not. Neither, increasingly, is the UK, even as the apparatus of surveillance and control is increased on the justification of the breakdown in our social unity. The increasingly intolerable behaviour of the immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa, the Indian subcontinent and the Middle East that have flooded Europe would not be permitted in China because, quite rightly, they regard such behaviour not merely as criminal but, perhaps far worse for the Chinese, as uncivilised.

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

It’s an increasingly common sight in London, but a woman dressed head-to-foot in a long black robe is not going to integrate into British culture. The religious prohibition justifying the imposition of this form of dress on Muslim women, the belief that, since women’s bodies are a source of sexual temptation to men, they should be covered from all men except the one who, through the marriage contract under Sharia Law, owns them, and that a woman’s freedoms rather than a man’s desires are the correct object of the interdiction, are all incompatible with and hostile to Western liberalism — even if that liberalism is itself under attack by the US-imported ideology of transgenderism. Both ideologies — both religions — bear the unmistakable imprint of a violent misogyny, and neither should be tolerated in the UK, let alone, as they are now, encouraged and even celebrated. In addition to monuments to the hijab, will we erect the same to female genital mutilation when woke ideologues declare anyone criticising this mostly sub-Saharan and Arabic cultural practice guilty of White colonialism? Since we already celebrate the genital mutilation of our own children under the orthodoxies of transgenderism, I don’t see why not.

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

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

The anti-social behaviour, violence and criminality that are now a daily experience of life in British cities are also a product of the woke ideology of ‘diversity’, which for decades — and certainly since the New Labour Governments of Tony Blair — has told every immigrant to the UK that their failure to attain the economic advancement for which they came to this country is because of White racism, that the British are a racist people, and that Britain is a racist country. This is the unceasing message of David Lammy, the Guyanese Foreign Secretary of the UK, of Sadiq Khan, the Pakistani Muslim Mayor of London, of Humza Yousaf, the Pakistani Muslim former First Minister of Scotland, and of the leader of the Scottish Labour Party, the Pakistani Muslim Anas Sarwar. This is to name only the most virulently anti-White politicians in office in the UK, and says nothing about the imams teaching the same and far worse in the UK’s mosques and other Islamic institutions and organisations embedded in the UK state and civil society.

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

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

2. The United States Model

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

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

In what is still the wealthiest country in the world by GDP, 12 percent of all US citizens, including 16 percent of US children — an astonishing 11.445 million kids — and 11 percent of US pensioners live below the poverty line. 13.9 percent of 16-19-year-olds, 21.5 percent of Black 16-19-year-olds, 6.2 percent of all Blacks, 5.3 percent of Hispanics and 3.8 percent of Whites are unemployed. A barely credible 1 in 4 juveniles between the age of 12 and 16 shoplift in the USA. In 2021, a staggering 142,957 rapes were reported. In the same year, 48,830 people died from gun-inflicted wounds. In 2023, there were 884,550 cases of aggravated assault, 222,795 robberies, and 1,562 people died of wounds from pointed instruments — knives and larger bladed weapons. The same year, 1,020,729 vehicles were stolen and there were 656 mass shootings — meaning 3 or more killings in a single incident — over 12.5 every week of the year.

To put this into context, the stabbings in Southport in July 2024 that sent the UK into a state of shock that continues to reverberate today are, literally, a twice-daily occurrence in the USA. If the UK is importing criminal behaviour with immigrants from countries with high crime rates, the USA, with a crime rate of 49.3 but an intentional homicide rate of 6.383 per 100,000 people, nearly six times that in the UK, is a bleak image of our future.

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

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

Here again, the model is the USA, whose crime rates have produced the largest prison population in the world (over 1.808 million in October 2024), and, at 541 prisoners per 100,000 of the population, has 4 times the incarceration rate in England and Wales (140) and by far the highest rate of any Western country. It is not coincidental to this programme of mass criminalisation, to which no country in the European Union currently comes close, that in 2022 some 37 of the 100 largest contractors for the US Department of Defense were profiting from mass incarceration. Among the 25 largest arms manufacturers, 16 relied on prison labour — around 23 US cents/hour, or 3 percent of the minimum wage — forced on inmates in prisons, jails and — pointing towards the bigger plan — in US immigration camps.

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

Built with public money, these ‘mega prisons’ are privately run by the same corporations to which the construction and running of the UK biosecurity state has been outsourced by the UK Government. These include Serco (HMPs Fosse Way, Ashfield, Doncaster, Dovegate and Thameside), the UK provider of public services in prisons, border security, military defence and information technology, which in 2013 was found by the prison inspectorate to be locking 60 percent of prisoners in their cells up to 23 hours per day in HMP Thameside, was accused of covering up sexual abuse in the Yarl’s Wood Immigration Centre, and in 2019 was fined £22.9 million by the Serious Fraud Office for charging the Government for electronically tagging people who were dead, in gaol, or outside the UK. 

Another company running these ‘mega prisons’ is G4S (HMPs Five Wells, Oakwood, Parc and Rye Hill), the UK’s largest security services company, which has already been accused of using detained immigrants as cheap labour in prisons, and of extreme misconduct in child custodial institutions in both the UK and the US. And another company is Sodexo (HMPs Forest Bank, Peterborough, Addiewell, Bronzefield, Northumberland and Altcourse), the French food services and facilities management company and one of the world’s largest multinational corporations, whose subsidiary, Sodexo Justice Services, was criticised by the UK Ministry of Justice in February 2019 for failing to prevent repeated and systemic breaches of the human rights of inmates at HMP Peterborough, including illegal strip-searches of prisoners and leaving a woman to give birth alone in her cell without medical support, leading to the death of her baby.

The New Prisons Programme, however, was only the first step in fulfilling the Government’s promise, which it announced in November 2020, 9 months into the lockdown of the entire UK population, to allocate £4 billion to create sufficient prisons to incarcerate 18,000 new inmates, to which another £3.8 million for a further 2,000 prison places was added in 2021, making a total of 20,000 new prison cells. Not surprisingly, as part of this progressive criminalisation of UK society, the Government also allocated an additional £275 million to recruit 20,000 more police officers. Five years and 2.65 million immigrants later, we’re seeing for what new crimes this 23 percent increase in the prison capacity of the UK and 13 percent increase in police officers is intended.

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

The model provided by the post 9/11 US security state, according to which any form or degree of authoritarianism and indeed totalitarianism can be justified by the requirements of national security, and which was extended under lockdown into programmes and technologies of biosecurity that encompass the surveillance and control of the body of every citizen, is already the new form of governance in Europe and across the West. The USA is the model for the remaking of Europe not only because it is a country founded on the replacement of the native population by mass immigration, but because it is a country of immigrants living within a military-industrial complex structured to support a Defence Budget of $916 billion in 2023 — more than the next nine highest countries combined and 40 percent of military spending globally — with which it threatens and bullies the rest of the world.

In chapter one of my book I asked how the UK, which built 218,000 new homes in 2024, will house a population the size of Glasgow every year for the foreseeable future, and it strikes me that this is one way — not in prisons, exactly, but, if we look at what’s happening in Ireland, in mass immigration labour camps. I have for some time now argued that, in the political economy of stakeholder capitalism under which we now live, the camp is the biopolitical paradigm of the state. It is this model that best serves the economic aims of replacement immigration, which, as I will show in the next section, are to depress wages in the host nation and increase the profit margins of the multinational companies employing that labour, and with it the wealth of the richest 1 percent who, through the neoliberal revolution, have transformed our flawed democracies into highly successful plutonomies. Let’s have a closer look at how this is done.

3. Immigration and Employment

The British people braving the wrath of Keir Starmer to demonstrate against the murder of three children by a Rwandan teenager who was born and raised in Wales aren’t only worried about the so-called ‘illegal refugees’ arriving on small boats across the English Channel, apparently with the blessing of, and certainly without opposition from, successive UK governments. They are also worried about the effects of 5.3 million immigrants from non-EU countries entering the UK in the last decade, of which 3.75 million remain here. Contrary to what we are constantly told by our politicians, media and educational and cultural institutions, this has not had a universally positive impact. On the contrary, and like everything else we’ve been told about the causes and effects of immigration, the impact has been overwhelmingly negative for the British citizen and taxpayer.

In 2022, two years into the recent doubling of immigration from 662,000 in 2020 to over 1.3 million in 2023, non-white people in the UK were twice as likely to be unemployed (6 percent) as White British (3 percent). Black people were slightly more than half as likely to be unemployed (7 percent). And among Pakistanis and Bangladeshis the unemployment rate was 3 times as high (9 percent). Even among Indians it was slightly higher (4 percent), and among all Asians it was, again, twice (6 percent) the unemployment rate among White Britons. Indeed, every racial and ethnic category has a higher unemployment rate than White British. And these figures only apply to economically active persons; so taking into account what I showed, in chapter one of my book, are the larger families of immigrants from non-EU countries in comparison to the White British population, these proportions are likely to be even worse.

In 2022, 159,400 Asians, 82,100 Black and 33,300 Mixed-race persons were unemployed in the UK, a total of 274,800 people, equal to the population of Sunderland, and over a third the number of White British people unemployed (772,500) in the UK. No-one who lives in the UK will be surprised by the unemployment rate among Black people, whose disproportionate poverty — with 46 percent of all people in Black households living in poverty in 2020 — is an indictment in itself of UK immigration policy since the Second World War; but the image we are sold of the industrious, hard-working, self-employed, self-sufficient Asian immigrant is a myth we’ve been sold by the ideologues of replacement immigration.

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

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

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

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

The Office for Budget Responsibility projects various scenarios for what impact this will have on public debt, which currently stands — after the 29 percent rise in debt following the Global Financial Crises of 2007-08 and the 11 percent rise after the lockdown of the global economy between 2020 and 2021 — at 96.4 percent of GDP. In fifty years’ time, the OBR projects scenarios of UK debt increasing from between 225 percent and 350 percent of GDP. Importantly, they demonstrate that raising the average earnings of migrants or reducing how long they stay here will not alter the long-run debt dynamic: ‘debt still rises substantially across the projection period’, they conclude, ‘and is on an unsustainable trajectory at the end of the fifty-year period.’

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

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

Weinstein admitted that, since migrant worker programmes target occupations already failing to attract native workers, those occupations will become a portal for migrant workers into the host country, and, as a consequence, wages for those occupations will fall. Combined, these two effects will lead to both ‘native flight’ from the host country and to ‘ghettoization’ of the immigrant population, exactly as has happened with the emigration of half a million Britons from the UK between 2020 and 2023 and the formation of the Bangladeshi enclave of Tower Hamlets; but this, he adds, is only a problem for nations which are ‘striving for a migrant presence to complement, not displace, native workers’. As I have shown, this does not describe the governments of the UK over the past 30 years or their immigration policies.

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

And as predicted by the United Nations, between 2004, when only 10.5 percent of the working-age population was born outside the UK, and 2019, household income before housing costs remained the same for the poorest fifth of the population. With the exponential increase in low-skilled immigrants from the Indian subcontinent and sub-Saharan Africa since 2021, incomes among the UK’s native working classes will undoubtedly be depressed even further in the future. Indeed, in the second quarter of 2025, the UK reported an increase in GDP by 0.7 percent, but it has been accompanied by a 1.1 percent decrease in household exposable income.

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

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

In chapter one of my book I showed how transnational technocracies like the United Nations and their agencies, which include the International Organization for Migration (IoM) and the International Labour Organization, have taken immigration and border control away from national governments; and we have just looked at the economic motivations for doing so, which create a larger Gross Domestic Product for nation states at the cost of lower wages and reduced public services for the progressively replaced native working class. In part two of this article I’ll look at what Weinstein refers to here as the ‘unadvertised consequences’ of replacement immigration that have an impact on the security — or, more accurately, on the safety — of the native population of Britain, which is to say, of the British people.

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). 

N.B. The report by Eric R. Weinstein ‘Migration for the benefit of all’ is briefly summarised in the blog Newspaste, where the author concludes that Weinstein — a venture capital fund manager — is a ‘Marxist’. There is an unfortunate tendency among those opposed to the Great Reset from the political Right, particularly in the USA, to equate it with communism; but as I have written elsewhere, the belief that George Soros, Bill Gates, Larry Fink, Klaus Schwab, Agustín Carstens, Tedros Adhanom, Ursula von der Leyen, Mark Rutte and the leaders of the G7 nations are all covert communists — presumably in the employ of Xi Jinping — is not a theory to which I subscribe. As I have shown in my analysis of this and numerous other documents and data in my book, replacement immigration is a project of stakeholder capitalism, not a conspiracy of world communism.