The Great Replacement: Conspiracy Theory or Immigration Policy?

A brief introduction to Simon Elmer's deep investigation into replacement immigration.

Dear Nevermore Readers.

Simon Elmer sent us a couple sections from the latter part of his book The Great Replacement: Conspiracy Theory or Immigration Policy? (2024).

If you read my article that Nevermore recently published titled On the Great Replacement, I’ve Come Around: Here is Why, you may remember that I was much impressed by the work that Simon Elmer has done on this topic.

We were going to publish those samples from Elmer’s book. But I didn’t think that was a good idea, because it it was too disorienting to be thrown into the later sections of the book without having read the earlier sections.

There is a reason Elmer wrote a whole book on the topic; he needed space to give the big picture, replete with ample documentation, and a clear breakdown and analysis of smoking gun documents. A sample from later in Elmer’s book just didn’t do it justice.

So instead I’m going to walk you through three excerpts of Elmer’s work. These are all interesting points in their own right and this will also show you why I’m impressed with his investigation. Then at the end I’ll link you to the book.

- Jordan Henderson

First Excerpt: Replacement Immigration as United Nations Policy for Maintaining Elevated Corporate Profits

Here is the first extended excerpt I’m going to share from Elmer’s work. (Note for context: This excerpt comes right after Elmer shared extensive statistics on the rate of immigration into the UK):

It’s from this data, and from the experiences of the British people it corroborates, that the idea has arisen that the people native to the British Isles are being systematically replaced in their own countries. This idea has come to be called the Great Replacement, and is not limited to the UK but applies to Europe and the United States of America. Denounced by Wikipedia as a ‘white nationalist far-right conspiracy theory’, the Great Replacement is in reality United Nations policy published in 2000 under the title ‘Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?’.

The 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 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 capitalism 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.

Remarkable: replacement immigration is openly gamed out at the highest levels, yet ordinary people are labeled far right conspiracy theorists for noticing what’s happening right in front of them.

This is not the only smoking gun document that Elmer analyzes. These documents are a powerful part of Elmer’s investigation: he doesn’t have to tell you that the global corporate class have been exploring replacement immigration as a means of maintaining their profits and power — Elmer shows you them saying this themselves, and Elmer brings the receipts.

Second Excerpt: Two Tier Policing

Elmer documents the very harsh punishments that the UK government inflicts on the white British majority for fake crimes such as attending protests and posting wrongthink opinions online. Then Elmer gives us examples of the other side of Britain’s two tier policing — showing us how lightly immigrants are treated for some very serious crimes.

On the instruction of our Prime Minister and former Director of Public Prosecutions, the police have arrested people for ‘inaccurate’ social media posts, for expressing ‘anti-immigration’ views, and courts have sentenced mere bystanders at demonstrations to lengthy sentences in gaol without the chance of bail. On 14 August, the Home Office boasted on social media, no less, that it had already made ‘more than 1,000 arrests’, with the promise that what it called these ‘criminals’ will face the full force of the law, having apparently decided in advance, and contrary to the presumption of innocence under UK law, that the courts will find them guilty. As of 1 September, 2024, 1,280 arrests and nearly 800 charges had been made in relation to the civil unrest following the Southport murders, including sentences of two years and more for social media posts. A 51-year-old English man was sentenced to 8 weeks in prison for posting a photograph of Asians wielding knives in front of the Palace of Westminster with the caption: ‘Coming to a town near you’. A 30-year-old English man was sentenced to 8 months for imitating how Muslims pray, apparently making a witness feel like she ‘didn’t belong in her own home city’. An 18-year-old English man was sentenced to 2 years and 4 months for kicking a police van. And a 21-year-old English man received 2 years for encouraging rioters on his Instagram account.

In contrast to these exaggerated custodial sentences, last September an Eritrean immigrant convicted of rape didn’t even go to prison, but was let out on bail, the conditions of which he broke the following month, leading to a police manhunt. In August this year it was revealed that a Nigerian immigrant who killed a 14-year old English boy with a machete in November 2022 will be released after just 6 months of his sentence. In September, a failed Indian asylum seeker was sentenced to 3 years for drugging and sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl a year after completing a prior 14-month sentence for assaulting police officers. This July, a Jordanian asylum-seeker who assaulted a WPC was fined £26 and excused community service because he cannot speak English. And the Pakistani brothers who violently assaulted police officers in Manchester Airport, including breaking a WPC’s nose, remain uncharged and on bail two months after the incident.

Again, this is just a sample of the extensive examples Elmer provides of Britain’s two tier police system. He makes a compelling case that Britain’s police and judiciary regularly favor the immigrant population and heavily discriminate against the native population of the UK (the English, Welsh, Scottish, and Northern Irish).

Third Excerpt: Immigration and Wages

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 ‘Preference for migrants, undercutting of natives’, 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.’

Here is a little info about the author Simon Elmer and a link to the book that we’ve just now reviewed excerpts from:

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).