In probably one of the most important Delingpod’s in a long time, writer Simon Elmer outlines the shocking realities of the UN’s policy of ‘migration replacement’. https://architectsforsocialhousing.co.uk
— — — —Here is the link for this week’s product https://nutrahealth365.com/↓ ↓ ↓
James and Dick’s CHRISTMAS Special 2024
Featuring Dick. And James. And quite possibly some Special Guests, if we can be arsed. Also: Dick is threatening to play his bass! Not included in ticket price but available so you don’t starve/die of thirst: nice pizzas out of wood-fired ovens; street food.
Tickets cost £25.
Location is: My neck of the woods. Northants. Nearest stations, Banbury/Long Buckby. Junction 11 of M40.
Saturday, 30th November 2024. Starts at 5pm
https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk/Christmas2024/↓ ↓ ↓
Buy James a Coffee at:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jamesdelingpole
The official website of James Delingpole:https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk
x
I love Danny Paul Go and subscribe to the podcast, baby I love Danny Paul Listen to the time, subscribe with me I love Danny Paul Welcome!
To The DellingPod with me, James DellingPod.
And I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest.
But before we meet him, a quick word from one of our sponsors.
Here's an exciting new product from our old friends at NutriHealth365.com.
It's called Deep Sleep.
Can you guess what it does?
Well, I spent about six months as an insomniac and it was six months of absolute hell.
Sometimes I was getting no sleep at all.
So, to fellow sufferers, I could say, I totally understand where you're coming from and that you'll be looking out for anything that might be able to help you.
I haven't tried deep sleep myself, so I can't guarantee it's going to work, but it's got to be worth a try, I would have thought.
It contains ashwagandha.
Magnesium glycinate, L-theanine, which is green tea extract, and vitamin B6. And this combination of ingredients will quieten your mind, relax the body, and pave the way for rejuvenating and uninterrupted sleep.
So it says at NutriHealth365.com.
You've liked some of their other products.
Last week I recommended their Libido Boost.
Haven't tried it myself again, but, you know, the idea...
It's got some good ingredients in it.
It's got Macca, which I know works.
I mean, or I've heard it works.
They've got their Immunex 365, which many of you found very helpful in warding off the evil lug you're going around last year.
So try their Libido Boost and try their Deep Sleep.
If you get three products, there's a 16% discount.
Two products, it's 10% off.
And you can find all this at NutriHealth365.com.
NutriHealth365.com.
Welcome back, Simon Elmer, to the Darling Pod.
Hello, Jane.
It's good to be back.
It's been...
Welcome to my show!
One of the few consolations, and there really are very few, for knowing that the world is run by Satanists who want to kill us all and or enslave us.
One of the few consolations is getting to talk to people I would never have talked to before.
People like you.
Because, I mean, I think, you know, I said this before, 20 years ago, I would have probably considered you to be a kind of leftist nutcase and you would have considered me to be a kind of Or I don't know what you'd call me.
Perish the thought.
You've moved to Hong Kong.
Yes, I've been here since January this year.
There's a gesture of confidence in the UK. It's so sad, James.
The number of people who have asked me, either in person or in writing, where should I go in the world?
I mean, you know, people living in Britain at the moment.
Which is a real, you know, the sort of stuff we're going to be talking about.
I am one of the, how many is it now?
It's a huge number.
I think about half a million people have left, you know, people, British citizens have left, I don't mean emigrating, but actually left the country, you know, in the last sort of three years or something.
And I'm one of them.
And, you know, it's not surprising.
I was back in the UK this summer for three months.
And I think after I'd been living here for sort of seven months then, Coming from Hong Kong and China back to the UK, back to London as well, over this summer, was a real eye-opener.
Even though I know the place, obviously, like the back of my hand.
I was born there and lived there for years.
It's still surprising to see the next level of degeneration, if you like, that's been going on.
What did you see?
What struck you?
Well, I arrived, strangely enough, the day before the general election.
To which I did not vote him.
And over that month between then and the events, the stabbings in Southport, I mean, first of all, just sort of coming back to the streets of London, you know, I live in South London, South Central.
Over here, I think in all the six or seven months I've been here, had been here then, I don't think I'd seen one person kicking off.
I think I'd seen one person kicking off, by which I mean someone going mad in public, you know, someone who was drunk and screaming and shouting or something.
There is absolutely no violence here whatsoever.
The streets are immaculate.
And just coming back to London, I think the very first day I got there, I went out on my bike, nearly got run over by someone in a car, who then opened their window and got this sort of stream of abuse at me, which is a daily experience in London.
Probably is across many parts of the UK. So I was struck by that.
But I was very struck by the election.
It came out straight away that Only 30, I think it's 33, 35% of the people who did vote, voted for Keir Starmer's government, the Labour government.
But out of the entire electorate registered to vote in the UK, only 20% did.
And yet...
I mean, our electoral system has always been very peculiar.
It is peculiar.
And it's been really manipulated this time, I think, more than it ever has been before, because Starmer's government has got a 174-seat majority in the House of Commons, which is, I think, the fourth highest majority in the history of Parliament.
So you've got a tiny mandate from the people, not a mandate, it's a minority government, But it's also got absolute power in that government.
It can push through almost anything straight away.
And I was also struck by the way that the Labour Party, the new MPs, the Parliament itself, the 650 MPs, half of them have never been in Parliament before in the House of Commons.
So they're absolutely brand new to the job.
And it was celebrated as being the most diverse Parliament ever.
It had the highest number of Asian, black, Gay or LGBTQ plus WXYZ, of women, every kind of diverse, and all the members of Parliament, I think it was exclusively actually the Labour, this huge majority they've got, they immediately started representing themselves on Twitter and social media in these identity groups.
So all the Asian and Black people got together, all the All the gay and LGBT MPs got together, all the women got together, and they represented themselves like this.
It reminded me of a sort of a beauty pageant, or wedding photos, these kind of photos of them standing in the Houses of Parliament.
Photographing themselves as representative of this demographic, whether it was defined by race or religion, because you had the highest percentage ever of Muslim MPs, or of women or gay or whatever.
And I thought, this is dangerous.
You know, we've had an appalling parliament since March 2020.
You know, we've spoken before about this huge wave of coronavirus-justified legislation, which was kind of waved through or simply rubber-stamped in retrospect after it had already come into power.
But this parliament, I've always called that parliament the worst in living memory, perhaps in history, but this one's even worse.
And I beg to think, what's going to be done with it?
How has it been selected?
What's its job?
Why has it been selected according to these principles of identity politics?
Can I just say briefly that this, you say that this parliament is worse than its predecessor, which it undoubtedly is, but the previous parliament was designed to ensure that this one was brought into being.
I mean, there's no doubt in my mind that the The sole purpose of the Rishi Sunak debacle regime was to be so embarrassing and so lame as to make it possible for the keys to be handed over to Keir Starmer and to be handed over to such a degree that As
you say, Starmer can push whatever legislation he likes, NEMCOM pretty much, because there's no opposition.
I hope you agree with me on this one, that democracy is an illusion.
I think we all agree with that, yes.
Yeah.
The idea that there's a blue party and a red party and that they oppose each other, I don't know when that state of affairs actually existed, if ever, but it certainly hasn't for a very long time.
I mean, I was very struck that in the last mayoral elections for the mayor of London, Which was won again by Sadiq Khan, a Muslim Pakistani mayor, who was one of the most greatest kind of experiment, but also the real driver of identity politics, the kind of the division that we see, and of replacement immigration as well.
You know, everyone knows that white British now make up something like a third of Londoners and so on.
And I was very struck that when the election, the last elections for Mayor of London, was it earlier this year or last year?
I can't remember now.
His opponent, who's extensively put up by the Conservative Party, I'd never heard of her before.
I literally had never heard of her.
I had no idea who she is.
It would be pretty hard for the Conservatives to put up a worse candidate for that position, which is a very powerful position.
And I think that because he plays the role that both parties want the London Mayor to play there.
But going back to the general election, Starmer actually was elected the leader of the Labour Party, therefore the leader of the opposition within the Houses of Parliament, in April 2020, so the month after lockdown.
And he was elected by this 20% of the electorate who voted him in.
It's only about 9 million people out of a country of, what are we, 69 million now.
Throughout that period, he didn't oppose anything.
That Theresa May and then Boris Johnson, whatever, all the Conservative government did.
They supported them in lockdown.
They supported them with mandatory masking, with gene therapy rollout, making that a condition of employment for the NHS and care workers and so on.
He supported the...
The proxy war in the Ukraine.
He supported the genocide in Gaza.
In other words, he hasn't opposed anything at all.
And I think during that period, he showed himself to be the candidate to lead the country into this next stage of the Great Reset.
You know, it's interesting, he and Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor now?
Yeah.
Who, it turns out, isn't a great economist from the Bank of England, but was simply someone who kind of worked there.
Both of them went to Davos.
They went to the annual general meeting of the World Economic Forum, six months before the election.
Rishi Sunat didn't go there, which is an interesting omission.
Why was he not going there?
Since he was implementing every policy, if you like, of the WF and all these others.
He didn't go there deliberately, and Starmer took...
Advantage of this to say, oh, he should be here, but I'm here.
And he made it very clear that when or if elected to the prime ministership of the UK, that he would...
He would adopt this kind of privatisation of the governmental process.
He talked about specifically making the state more interventional in our lives, and boy has he done that, but also having a much closer relationship between the UK state and government and the corporate sector, which is of course what the WF represents.
The WF is the think tank for the 1200 most powerful companies in the world.
It's hard to avoid the conclusion that he was appointed to this role.
He went there to say, I am on your side, I'm going to do exactly what I'm told.
This is my Chancellor, she's going to do exactly what we are told.
And Sunak's lack of presence there was in a way, as you say, clearing the way for the secession, not between two different parties, but from A very, very weak, diminutive, uncharismatic laughingstock of a Prime Minister, which was Rishi Sunak, who saw this transition out of the lockdown through the proxy war in the Ukraine into this next phase.
The transition to this very new type of leadership, which Starmer has shown since he's come in, you know, the social...
The disturbance, if you like, you can call it the demonstrations in response to the stabbing in Southport of 11 people, of which three were killed, three young children.
His response to that was his first crisis that he had to face as Prime Minister very, very soon.
It came about a month after he was elected or appointed, if you like.
And he showed very clearly how he's going to govern the country.
He's not going to be like Rishi Sunak.
He's going to do it with a truncheon.
I was going back to your question about what was my impression?
Returning this summer is how much this new...
He's been around for a long time.
Everyone kind of knows what he is, but he's never been the leader.
He said a lot of things about he's going to make politics more accountable and open and all that.
But what he's actually done is he's represented himself as a head of kind of a police state in a way.
He himself is the ex-former Director of Public Prosecutions, which is the third most senior prosecutor in the UK. He's trained as a lawyer and he's represented himself as the head of a kind of a police state.
He's threatening that he's going to make us regret standing up to him and demonstrating.
He keeps on talking about using the full force of the law.
But also, I guess the apparatuses of surveillance of the UK state to track down and punish, with these enormously exaggerated custodial sentences, anyone who not only gets onto the street and demonstrates, but even states an opinion contrary to that of his government and every other transnational technocracy in the world.
He says quite clearly, if you have anti-immigration views, you will be tracked down by us.
And he's shown that.
Yes.
Just a brief word about Starmer as the head of the DPP. A lot of people have said to me, and I agree, that when you meet a really high-powered lawyer, They really do fire on all cylinders.
They're very impressive characters.
They may be complete bastards, a lot of them, but they are impressive.
They think very quickly.
They're charismatic.
They're incisive.
Keir Starmer is none of those things.
He's a really, really third-rate character.
There's no sense of a great legal mind there, which suggests to me that they plan these things much further back than we could imagine possible.
That Starmer, you know, he's on the Trilateral Commission.
Yes, yeah.
That he got his appointment as the head of the DPP, partly, I think, to get Saville off the hook, because it was Starmer, wasn't it, who stopped Jimmy Saville being prosecuted.
I think he was being set up for this role.
I think they planned these things a long way back.
I agree certainly in terms of, you know, he keeps on, in the lead up to the election, he repeated ad infinitum, this role that, you know, his father was a toolmaker and he's working class.
But he was asked actually to define working class and his only definition was the working class is a failed middle class person, someone who lacks aspirations.
What?
He said, he said, well, a working class person is someone who wants to get on in life But this is the phrase he used.
He said, there's a nagging voice inside their heads which is stopping them from doing so.
What a terrible thing to say.
That's not a working class person speaking.
Anyway, but apart from his fake class background, he is an establishment figure.
To go back, I've met a few fairly high-powered lawyers, probably not as high as you, James, but I agree.
But they tend to be Lawyers, they pretend to be barristers for the defence, don't they?
The prosecutors are usually people who are not good enough to be barristers and make the money that barristers do.
It's usually, you know, it's a cliche in the legal world that if you can't do your job, you go and become a prosecutor on behalf of the state.
So I'm not really surprised that he is this sort of Stasi-like authoritarian figure who doesn't have any of the flair.
Or the ability to think on his feet that a barrister does for obvious reasons.
One of the things a barrister has to do is to respond to what's happening in a court and anticipate every question.
Someone put a wonderful photograph of Starmer up the other day.
I don't know where it was.
He's been doing the rounds.
He's spoken to everyone over the last few months.
He's gone to the United Nations.
He's met with Ursula von der Leyen, the head of the European Commission, to discuss reversing Brexit.
He's met the new head of NATO, Mark Hutter.
He's invited the little runt in, Zelensky, to beg for more money, handed more money over.
Who else has he met?
He's met everyone.
He's been to Germany with the, what was it called, the COD, lateral or whatever it was, to say, you know, we're going to put more money into it.
Anyway, he's met with all these people.
And there was a wonderful photo the other day of him sort of standing, I think, at the UN or something, with this completely blank look on his face.
He looks kind of out of his depth.
He's not a great legal mind.
He's not a great political figure.
If he was a great political figure, given the competition, one of the most hated conservative administrations, governments in memory, led by, I used to call him the pizza delivery boy, a man with zero charisma whatsoever, Rishi Sunak.
You could expect him to get the majority that he did, but you'd expect him to get more than 20% of the electorate's vote.
That's a testament to failure.
His failure is a politician.
He doesn't have the charisma to win people over, say like Tony Blair did.
He is a war criminal and a liar, but he definitely had charisma as a politician.
I always found him kind of creepy, but anyway, he kind of won a lot of people over.
You forgot Satanists, by the way.
Yes, Satanists as well.
But he also doesn't have the vision.
He doesn't have a vision of where we're going.
In August, he held that press media junket in the back garden of Downing Street, and it was titled Fixing the Foundations.
Which reminded me of, what's his name, you know, the back to basics sort of thing.
It's always, we're going to go back to basics, we're going to fix the UK from the bottom by changing the foundations.
Like a reset.
Like a great reset.
He used that word a lot, I think, roundabout coming up in the elections, didn't he?
But then I think once he got in, someone said, don't use that phrase.
So he doesn't have the vision, he doesn't have the charisma, and he also doesn't have the political mouse, I think.
He's not a great operator in Parliament.
What he's got is, I think, some people who are specialists in this, whether they're members of the Labour Party or maybe brought in by the EWF or the UN or whatever, the people who have appointed him to this role, have come in and somehow turned The greatest, has produced the most unrepresentative, undemocratic parliament in British history.
20% of the electorate, the fourth biggest majority in the House of Commons.
So that's kind of where I was looking at that and wondering, I knew what was going to happen next, but I wanted to know how it was going to happen.
Whether it's going to be, you know, how this is going to be done.
I came to the conclusion he was going to lead us with the truncheon.
He was going to lead us at the head of a police state.
He seems to be, to me, to be as much a policeman as a politician.
And I think he's much more comfortable inhabiting the role of a politician with his threats.
Those kind of videos he released of himself at the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police Service with these screens, presumably attached to CCTV cameras around London, spying on the public.
And declaring, you know, you're going to regret going on to a protest against us.
You're going to regret anything you write online.
It's very threatening.
That seems to be where he's more comfortable.
And then, at the end of this, at kind of writing about this, and thinking about this new parliament, and what it was primed to do, we had the murders in Southport.
And that's when everything changed.
Well, so, I think we've had our...
Amuse, amuse-bouche, amuse-girl.
Now let's go on to the main course, which is white replacement, the great replacement.
Because it's very odd, Simon.
I've been podcasting for a certain kind of audience for the last four or five years.
I mean, since I became properly awake.
And I've never done one on one of the most egregious facets of the New World Order.
I think we all know that there's a kind of master plan which has been cooked up over decades and centuries leading up to where we are now.
But Nobody really talks about it, except in sort of...
I got upbraided on my Telegram channel yesterday by somebody calling himself Son of Wotan.
And Son of Wotan was his chosen pseudonym.
He was berating me for not having dealt with the fact that we white people are being driven out.
We're going to become a minority and this is a terrible thing.
And I was thinking...
What, you think I'm sitting here and thinking, whoopee, this is great.
More diversity, please.
I know what's going on.
I think it's deplorable.
But I also know, I also know, and I think this is, maybe we can talk about this a bit later on.
I also think that people like Tommy Robinson and his...
Suppose resistance movement are part of the problem, that they are controlled opposition, very much controlled opposition.
In fact, controlled by the same people who are planning white replacement, who are behind the great replacement.
But just tell me what is, I mean, as you pointed out in one of your excellent articles on the subject, you've written four pieces.
You said if you go and look at the Great Replacement, is it called Great Replacement or is it called White Replacement?
No, the term you get, the term is the Great Replacement.
Yeah, go on, I'll get back to that term myself.
And if you look it up on Wikipedia, you'll learn that it's a white nationalist conspiracy theory.
White nationalist, racist, I think there's another thing in there, maybe supremacist conspiracy theory, which is a judgment echoed by, what's his name, Fulker Turk, who is the head of the Human Rights Department or Division of One of the most senior jurists at the United Nations declared this march that the great replacement,
this is the way that it's referred to by those who want to dismiss the reality behind it, was racist, white supremacist, white nationalist, because white people aren't allowed to be nationalists, an attack on woke, an attack on diversity, and I could have mentioned this in other interviews, but he also says, this is what really struck me about this.
He said, anyone extolling or even speaking about this theory, or let alone the truth behind it, was enabling violence, which is exactly what, that's the basis on which our speech is being censored, not only by Keir Starmer, so punishing anyone who writes anything online, but by a whole range of technocracies now.
At the moment, the United Nations, the World Health Organization, The World Economic Forum and the European Commission, just for the four biggest, let alone the individual countries themselves.
And, of course, these very, very powerful oligarchs like Bill Gates or the head of BlackRock or so on, Larry Fink, they're all promoting not only legislation but technologies which are going to monitor and censor our speech.
And the justification for doing that in what is meant to be the great free world, as we're called, the world of free speech, is that certain types of speech enable violence.
Now, let me just come back to this phrase, the great replacement.
I've called my articles, parts one to four, the great replacement immigration in the UK. And I do look at this term, great replacement.
What I actually start off looking at is replacement immigration.
That's the reality.
The Great Replacement itself is a term which is used to do a number of things.
One of the things it does is it unifies, as a single conspiracy, the concerns or the expressed concerns of a whole range of people, probably including, maybe from one end, someone like your son of Wotan.
Who thinks, you know, who's a Viking or something like that and wants to, you know, defend the white Northern Europeans against blah, blah, blah, blah.
And on the other hand, you could have someone like me, perhaps, who's probably at the other end of the spectrum, who does his research into what is actually happening in the UK. What is the origins of the policy?
What are the economic goals?
What political impact it's having on our sovereignty?
How it's being implemented, what the results of that implementation are on our society in terms of our safety, but also economically, the impact on it as well.
And that's what I'm looking at mostly in my article.
I look at the facts and figures behind replacement immigration.
And that's a term, that's not my term, that's a term coined by the United Nations in this policy document, which maybe we can talk about.
So straight away there, you've got a policy which was in a paper published in the year 2000 by the Immigration Department of the United Nations.
And then 24 years later, you've got the head of human rights at the same organization, a transnational technocracy, not only denying its existence...
But claiming that anyone who quotes from it or speaks it or says, have you looked at this as I've done, is enabling violence as well.
Now they've done this through this term.
They don't talk about replacement immigration.
They use the great word, the great replacement.
As soon as I heard it, I thought, oh God, it's another great, isn't it?
The great reset, the great replacement.
It's part of the way that they take control of this narrative.
So that...
We saw this under Covid, didn't we, James?
If people like us got up and said, hold on, I don't remember the government having the right to take away my freedoms.
Why are we not being told about the actual threat of this supposedly civilised engineering disease?
Immediately, we would say, oh, hold on, that's what a right-wing person does.
Sorry, a far-right person does.
And they would dig up some far-right person, put them on the back of the Daily Mail and say, oh, well, if you're a Covid denier, you're on the far right.
And the same thing is being done now.
I'm not someone who is questioning this or worried about the impact of mass replacement immigration into the UK or anywhere across the West, for which I produce the figures which are completely irrefutable because they come from their sources.
I am simply now Someone who's associated with the far right.
And I think the figures that they've chosen to represent this, like Tommy Robinson, like Lawrence Fox, like, who's that other guy?
Andrew Tate?
I've no idea this guy really is.
And even, you know, maybe to a lesser extent, but also Nigel Farage, they seem to be...
It's something like out of a 70s sitcom of what the right is meant to be.
You know, there's the geezer, the kind of the macho sexist, the kind of the dodgy stockbroker, and the arrogant toff.
You know, it'd make a great sort of sitcom, wouldn't it?
I don't think much of any of those people.
I don't know a lot about them, actually.
I met Lawrence Fox once.
He's an actor.
But if I talk about this, the first thing that people are going to say, the people holding up things saying refugees welcome, is you're far right because these people who they could identify as far right, whatever that means now, means almost anyone who disagrees with the government, is by association.
So the term itself, the Great Replacement, is not what I really like to use.
Except when I'm looking at it as a strategy to suppress any discussion, like we're having or a number of us are having, about the reality of replacement integration, which is not a conspiracy theory, it's policy.
And how are they...
What's their rationale for this thing?
They've presumably got sort of a top sell line that's designed to make us think it's a good thing.
It is a top sell line, and I don't really buy it, although I've kind of addressed it a lot.
This document from 2000, published by the UN, it's a policy paper, and it looks at a problem which is a real problem.
And that is in Western countries, but not only in Western countries.
It's happening in China as well.
The population is getting older and the population is living for longer.
That's one thing, it's getting older.
So there's a disproportion between the working age population and the retired population.
So the support ratio between the people who are working, paying taxes, and the people who are retired is diminishing.
And the UN has come up with a figure called, which is 4.09.
It's a nice precise figure, which they say is required in order to sustain this balance between the tax and so on.
So they don't look at any other...
The other thing they're looking at is the reducing, the radically reducing birth rates in white majority countries.
Again, it's not only, it's in China as well.
I think I read today, actually, in China Daily, that there is currently, or last year, there are 300 million people in China who are over the age of 60.
And by 2050, it's predicted that a third of the population, that's 1.4 billion people, probably 1.5 by then, is going to be over the age of 60.
So it's not exclusive to us.
But definitely in the UK, I've been looking at the figures, back in 1964, The average woman in the UK had 2.7 something children.
I remember quite back then but yeah we used to sort of say 2.5 kids, 2.7 and now in 2024 it's 1.7.
So over a period of 60 years every woman in the UK has lost one child.
So we do have a diminishing birth rate.
On the justification of increasing the working population And maintaining this proportion of 4.01 to the retired population, given declining birth rates in Western countries, and particularly amongst the white population, the UN has come out and said, we've got a great solution to this, which is mass replacement immigration.
It's their term.
It's not my term.
They didn't use mass replacement.
They said replacement immigration.
The reason they've used this term is because that describes exactly what it is.
I'll go into the figures here.
If anyone wants to, they can look at the articles.
They're 40,000 words.
They're very big.
I think I'm probably going to have to turn it into a book.
But the bottom line, as they say in America, is...
The UN recommends that over 1 million immigrants are let into the UK for every year between the year 2000 and 2050.
That by 2050 the population of the UK will have doubled exactly from 68 million was then to 136 million and 80% of that population will be post 1995 immigrants and their descendants.
That's the figures they've worked out.
Now, they've used these calculations, they've got sort of an algorithm in a way, and they've applied it to the US, they've tried it to the European Union itself, but also to all the other countries, to Russia, to South Korea, to Japan, other countries with diminishing birth rates.
And when I read this, because someone sent it to me, because I was writing about this, I looked at it and I then went to the figures, which I had been looking at at the time, the ONS, the Office of National Statistics figures, which show to me something which really blew my mind, as they say.
Since 2021, immigration in this country has enormously jumped.
In the 10 years before that, it was around about three quarters of a million immigrants coming into the country Of course, some of them are emigrating out as well, some of them are students and so on, but coming in since 2021, it's gone up to 1.2 million per year.
And it's also where those immigrants are coming from as well.
In total, out of the 1.2 million immigrants that have come into the country, about somewhere between, somewhere around 720, 750, somewhere between 680, 720, 1,000 are remaining here.
They're long-term immigrants and they're here on work permits.
They're not students.
They're economic immigrants.
They're not refugees.
It's kind of a ridiculous thing that they're talking about.
And they're coming not from the European Union anymore.
Since 2020, I think, European immigration has been declining.
But as of 2021, More people are emigrating back to the European Union than actually coming in.
They're coming from a new place.
They're coming from seven countries, principally, which are India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, so from the Indian subcontinent, and from three countries, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa, overwhelmingly Nigeria, but also from Zimbabwe and Ghana.
Over the last three years, 1.3 trillion people from those seven countries have come into the UK and have stayed here.
So 1.3...
Sorry, 1.3 million.
Sorry.
Not trillion.
When you lose a lot of figures, it goes, yeah, 1.3 million.
That's just in three years.
So when I saw, when I looked at these ONS figures, about as acronyms you can get, and then I read this UN document, I thought, they've taken a while to get around to implementing it.
It's not like we haven't had any immigration since the year 2000.
We've had about three quarters of a million a year, but it's gone up another lot now.
And importantly, it's coming from a different source, if you like.
The Brexit referendum, it came into effect in 2020.
People began to leave in greater numbers the EU since the actual referendum was done.
But since 2020 itself, it's completely reversed.
And the UK government, which you have to remember, we go back to the 2016 referendum to leave the European Union, it was voted on by a majority of the British people in one of the biggest turnouts ever.
I think it was 78% or something like that.
So a real mandate, not like the one that Keir Starmer's got.
And it was primarily voted on to stop this huge level of immigration, which really reached its, not its current level, but the sort of level The people who felt uncomfortable with and concerned about since Tony Blair in the mid to late 97, 98.
That's when it sort of trebled first under Labour and then under subsequent Conservative government that we had the last whatever it is years, it doubled again.
That vote in the Brexit referendum was primarily, there's a lot of other issues about actual control of our country over the bureaucrats in Brussels and all that sort of thing, but it was primarily about stopping immigration at these levels.
Which I guess people thought, well didn't thought, they felt the experience was changing the country and not in a good way.
And what the governments have done, the last three governments, have ignored that mandate from the British people.
They've said, no, okay, you can stop us getting people in from the European Union.
And they're still coming in, but more of them are leaving than are actually coming in.
So we're going to get in 1.3 million people from Sub-Saharan Africa and the Indian subcontinent in a period of three years.
And the ONS says that figure of 1.2 million coming in It usually ends up about three-quarters of a million immigrants a year who stay here is going to be the figure for the foreseeable future.
So when I saw those figures, I realized that UN policy document, and there's a lot of other documents that go with it, which I've written about, is not conspiracy.
It wasn't a white paper to be considered.
It is UN policy.
And because of the control that organisations like the United Nations and the European Commission have over our country, it's that.
It's those policies which are setting UK immigration policy.
You know, we saw this.
This seems to have been decided and being enacted.
On a sort of, well, A, on the level that the people have no say in at all.
But B, it seems to be being concealed from them.
Through the medium of various distraction operations.
I mean, the boats being one of them.
I think you made the point that stop the boats.
Yes, of course it's annoying seeing these rubby-dubs arriving on beaches with these fighting-age men.
But this is a fraction of the people that are being Imported legally.
They're presumably applying for visas or working visas or whatever.
And yes, here you go.
Stamp.
And you've got Pantomime, like one of the Tory leadership candidates, Robert Jenrick, saying, I think this immigration malarkey seems to be a bit of a problem.
But wasn't Jenrick a member of a government not so long ago, which was...
I mean, I think in 2021, the Conservatives were in power, not Labour.
And I don't recall Jen Rick piping up about this at the time.
It's as if they don't want us to know what's going on.
I mean, that's why I think your research is so valuable, that 1.2 million is a hell of a lot of immigrants.
True.
The analogy I use is the actual people who are staying here, because of course 1.2 million come in and other people are leaving, and that means from the whole British Isles.
So the net immigration is something like 700 million a year, but it still means that 1.2 million are coming in.
It just means a lot of people are leaving.
But who are those people are leaving?
But even if we look at the net immigration, that's the population of Glasgow.
Every year for the foreseeable future.
And not just houses, but the infrastructure around it.
It's, how are we going to house these people?
That's a real question that I want to ask.
How are we going to do that?
We built 230 homes last year, 230,000 homes last year.
How are we going to house and create the infrastructure for that every year for the future?
Now, just to go back to your point, the stop the boats, it's a way, it's another one of managing resistance to this or even awareness of it.
So the same way that we have these two parliamentary parties, you kind of swap being the government of the UK.
And one of them says, oh, you know, we create this discourse of just stop the boats, which the media has adopted all the time.
First of all, it creates the illusion that the people coming into the country are refugees and that they're coming across on boats from Calais.
Now, the British does have borders like any other country.
People can't simply walk into the country anyway.
If those people are refugees who are coming in, in fact, 84 percent of them are men.
And as they've been called, they're fighting age men.
If they're refugees, where are their families?
I do believe, you know, a lot of them are coming from countries where there is war, which, by the way, the economic migrants, you know, the Sub-Saharan Africa and Indian subcontinent, none of those countries are at war.
But the ones coming on the boats, they come from Iran, they come from Sudan, they come from Syria.
They're coming from, with the exception of Vietnam, they all come from Muslim countries, and a lot of them are at war.
So I could sort of ask, yes, you're refugees, but how did they get here?
How are they getting all the way across Europe and here?
And why haven't they got their families with them?
They might be refugees from war, but they're not being brought here because they're refugees.
They're being brought here for other reasons.
But even given that, In the last three years, 100,000 have come into this country.
That's 100,000 too many.
Why are they here?
They've entered the country illegally, supposedly.
Of course, they haven't really.
They've been brought across.
But that's a fraction of the 1.3 million from these seven countries that have come here in the last three years.
That's what we should really be concerned about.
And there's no question about whether they're illegal or refugees.
They're not from war-torn countries.
They are economic migrants, and they have been granted visas to come into this country, sponsored by businesses who have said, we will employ them here.
And that's what has been concealed from the British people by creating this discourse, this sort of crisis of Stop the boats, which then allows people on either side of the political spectrum, or whatever way you want to call it, to say, if you are against stopping the boats, you are racist.
If you're in favour of allowing the boats in, you know, the left placard saying refugees welcome, all refugees are welcome, without conditions, and it doesn't matter what they are, you are therefore a nice person, you're a left-wing person, you're a woke person, whatever.
First of all, that's ridiculous.
Way of understanding whether you should let refugees into the country or not, how many, what constitutes a refugee and all these very complex problems.
To simply say refugees welcome is not a policy, it's a slogan, but that actually isn't the issue.
It is an issue having 100,000 mostly working-age men in the country who haven't really been documented.
We don't know why they're here.
We don't know where their families are.
They come from Muslim countries.
They're people who've come from war.
And they're simply being let into this country by the government.
That is a concern.
But replacement immigration is something else.
It's in far, far bigger numbers.
And that is undoubtedly part of the UK's immigration policy, to let that number of people in.
How far does this go back?
What do you know about the Kalurgi-Kudenhav plan?
I've heard the name and I know vaguely what it means.
The only way I've gone back is to...
What I want to do...
What I try to do in these four articles is...
I did the same thing when we were under lockdown and looked at the so-called COVID-justified measures which were imposed on us, which is to ask the great legal question, qui bono, who benefits from this?
So I do look at some of the ideologies around this, particularly the ideologies of diversity, of multiculturalism, which of course goes way back into the 80s and the 90s.
The diversity is kind of the new form of that.
And I look at how that...
Has been exported and disseminated in our culture for many years, many decades, in order to create consensus, or it's not really a consensus, to create the welcoming of our own replacement.
Our experience of being replaced.
I look at that, but that is an important part.
And it's also in the documents.
There's a very important document, which was...
Recommendations made to the United Nations by this extremely influential banker, I guess you could call him a politician, I will, who was commissioned by the UN to produce a document on replacement immigration.
Sutherland.
Sutherland, yes, of course, Peter Sutherland, yes.
Tell us about him.
I mean, I tell you what, whenever I've read anything about him, The whiff of sulphur has been so strong.
Where did he come from?
What's the story on him?
You know, there's this sort of idea that there are 6,000 people in the world who run it.
Yes.
And they are, we call them the global elite.
You haven't heard of most of them.
And he's one of them.
He is born in Ireland, which is interesting because Ireland is really one of the test cases on replacement immigration at the moment.
They kind of get these little countries.
It's a country which has been completely taken over by multinational corporations for a long time.
It's almost become a...
Offshore financial jurisdiction, hasn't it?
None of the companies pay tax there and they're meant to come in.
So the country is completely in the control of Google and Amazon and all that sort of stuff and has been for a long time.
And they're using it a little bit like New Zealand was used with the vaccine, gene therapy mandates.
It's a kind of a testing case in a small country with a small population of how people would react to it.
And the Irish are sort of, you know, they don't know what's hit them.
I think they've got 20% of the population now.
Which is foreign-born, in a very short space of time.
It's not a long-term thing, the way it's been happening in the UK, especially in England.
It's a very kind of a recent thing there.
So he's an Irishman.
His CV is rather long, James.
He was, he died recently, actually.
He was a banker.
Is he a lawyer by training?
I don't know.
But he sat on every single transnational technocracy in the world.
He was a real mover and shaker.
And he was asked by the George Soros Foundation, Open Foundation.
There's a name.
There's a name.
To write a report about Which is effectively commissioned by the United Nations with a whole series of recommendations, 16 recommendations on replacement immigration.
And most of those recommendations are about financing it.
This is what I really want to get across to people.
Replacement immigration, the figures I've quoted are for everywhere in the UK, sorry, in Europe and including the USA. It is a trillion dollar a year industry.
It's vast.
It's absolutely vast.
The cost of moving people across the world, getting businesses to sponsor them, moving in, setting up their housing, paying for their training, their education, their health service, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Of course, who pays for that is something we're going to get back to when we look at the economic models.
But a little sticker of that, because I don't want to forget.
But most of the recommendations are about obliging members of the European Union and the USA to take in not only a fixed number of immigrants, economic immigrants, but also to bear the cost of paying for it as well, this huge cost.
But at the end of it, the last five recommendations are about softening us up to accept it.
What he calls the host or the native population, as he calls it.
So immigrants and natives.
It's the terms they use.
Woke people get very upset about that term.
Native simply means that you're bored in that country.
And he says, we need to use soft power to make the host nation, the host population, accept these vast numbers of figures coming in.
You know, the UN document says, when it says 1.2 million, it says...
This will be greater than the people of the UK have ever experienced before.
So we talk about propaganda.
And one of the things he says is, we need to...
What's the word he uses?
He doesn't use the word indoctrinate, but he talks about getting into every level of government.
Not just parliament, but municipal, local, and making sure that everyone is up to...
What's the phrase?
Up to...
Everyone has been up to speed with how they respond to people saying, hold on, why are all our social housing going to people from Nigeria, for instance?
You know, I've just done some research that shows 10% of social housing in this country is is occupied by a household whose head is an immigrant.
The head of that household is an immigrant.
In London it's 47.6%.
Can you believe that?
20% in England and 47.6% of all social housing in respectively England and London is occupied by an immigrant family.
Whose head is there, so it's actually more than that.
And 10% and 17.6% respectively for England and London is occupied by an immigrant who's arrived in the country since 2021.
Can you believe that?
So, when people come up who've been waiting on the housing list for ages for a house or a home or can't get to see...
In other words, they're experiencing all the negative effects of replacement immigration, the huge burden on the state services.
How do...
The local councillors, how do the head of cabinets, how do heads of municipal authorities, how do the governments, how do yous or MP, how do they respond to it?
And he talks about we need to educate people, which means of course indoctrinate, in what the justification is for this level of immigration.
And one of them of course, the easiest one to just say, The Great Replacement is a conspiracy theory.
It doesn't exist.
If you believe in it, you're racist.
Does he say that?
No, he doesn't say that specifically.
He uses the term soft power.
He says that the UN needs to speak with one voice.
So not a united nations, but a world government.
He says the people of the host nations, the native populations, need to be monitored and monitored.
They need to report back.
The nations need to report back on their compliance with this program.
He says a whole lot of other things.
In other words, the soft power, what we come to call soft power now, it's not legislation saying we're going to do this, sort of the Keir Starmer way, but indoctrinating people through ideology, for want of a better term, into accepting what they're only just becoming to realize is their replacement in their own country.
The figures are...
There's no question about this.
I found it...
I came across an article the other day printed in the Guardian of all places.
Can you believe it?
In the year 2000.
So the same year as the UN document.
And now this is an article which wouldn't get anywhere near the editor's desk of the Guardian today.
It shows how much it's changed.
But it was an article in which the author wrote that by the end of the century, so by...
2100, white British people in this country, in the UK, would be a minority.
Now, what's interesting about that prediction, it was based on a tiny, far smaller number of, you know, kind of Tony Blair level of immigration.
My estimation is now we're going to be replacing our own country as a majority by 2050 at the very latest.
That's given immigration levels, but also reproduction levels.
One of the justifications, as I said, is why people are not reproducing enough.
And I look at that in the fourth part of my article and how we can reverse that.
But also, yeah, the immigration levels.
But the interesting thing about this article is the man who wrote it said the statistician who calculated these figures that we would be replaced by the end of the century does not want to be named because he was afraid of being called a racist.
Now that's in the year 2000, yeah?
Now, nowadays, you and I know there's no fear of being quarter racers.
Of course we're going to be quarter racers.
There's already been.
Some idiot wrote to me the other day on my website accusing me of the whole sort of thing.
So, undoubtedly, the fear and the ideology goes back a long way.
One of the things I like about you, Simon, is that you are a kind of Statistics wonk, and you have exactly the kind of mind that I don't have.
And people will be able to watch this podcast and go, well, you can't argue with those figures.
Absolutely.
A population the size of Glasgow is settling in this country every year.
And that by 2050, white people or the native population, I suppose they're the same thing, more or less, is going to be a minority.
Which is extraordinary.
Have you ever read a book or seen the Peter Hall...
Film thereof, Aitkenfield.
No, it rings a bell, but no, I haven't seen it.
Aitkenfield.
It's about...
It's about a Suffolk village and it was a best-selling book I think in the 1970s when people were becoming aware of what we were losing, you know, in the same way that sided with Rosie and as I walked out one summer morning that people were already recognizing that their own past was almost being written out of existence, that it was never going to be regained, that England was no longer England and so forth.
And I remember I had this experience.
I had a brief period when I was working on The Times.
And I remember having these very awkward discussions with Caitlin Moran And Giles Corrin, who I thought, well, yeah, they're fellow groovy columnists, I thought, and we're all good pro-stylists.
We're all kind of in the same game.
And yet there was this gulf between us where they viewed my concerns that our country was changing beyond recognition as sort of evidence of moral deficiency on my part.
And they simply couldn't understand why I found it objectionable that England should no longer be English, you know?
And I tried to explain it to them.
I said, look, when I go to Kenya, say, I like the fact that it is like Kenya.
It's not, you know, okay, okay, there's a few white-owned farms, but it is essentially a black African country.
And when I go to, I don't know, India, it feels Indian to me and so on.
And when I go to Italy, it's so Italian.
And I'd like that rule to apply to England as well.
I don't see why England shouldn't be English.
And anyway, fast forward 20 years and I realize now that they were just, at best, brainwashed stooges of the New World Order.
At worst, Eager participants in that evil master plan.
Now, you don't have to go here because it's not...
I don't think it's something you're interested in, but how...
Okay, you mentioned Peter Sutherland.
Do you know what he's...
Do you think he's bloodlines?
I mean, do you think with the Sutherland family, are they kind of...
Or do you think he's an apparatchik of the 6,000 people who run the world?
Probably the latter.
I don't really know.
Yes, exactly.
Exactly.
Well, that's what I would have thought.
I think you'll agree that these sort of power structures take a sort of pyramid form.
And as you go further up the pyramid, you find smaller and smaller groups planning the future.
They give the orders to people like Peter Sutherland and even they convey their wishes through organizations like the Trilateral Commission.
But if you had to hazard a guess...
Okay, so replacement migration is being sold to us as the need to supply the needs of an aging population and to reverse population growth and stuff.
We know that's bullshit.
What do you think?
It's the real purpose behind all this.
Why did they, whoever they are, why do they want to do this?
You know me, I'm an old historical materialist, so I always look at the economic motivations to things.
The idea that there is a smaller and smaller hierarchy of people who are controlling the world, whether or not that is true, I think that's the nature of all hierarchies, I think.
But in order to implement such levels of control, there has to be something in it for those doing so.
And that something is money and power, which are not the same thing.
There is a very clear...
There's two answers to this.
How it's done is another thing that we can talk about.
We kind of are talking about that.
The first one is the economic one.
There was an article by a man called Eric R. Weinstein, who is another banker.
He's a...
A capital fund manager.
But he's also kind of a trained physicist or something.
And he wrote an article that was commissioned by the United Nations.
Again, I think it was published in 2004, something like that, 2002 perhaps, shortly after.
And it was called Immigration for the Benefit of All.
He wrote this?
Yeah, he wrote this.
And it's a paper promoting mass immigration and a lot of it is about how to do it, how countries have to stomp up money to bring people in to Make this balance, blah, blah, blah.
But he also talks a lot about the economics of it as well.
And he says a number of very interesting things, which to me really kind of clarified what this is about, or part of what it's about.
He says very openly, That the nature of the jobs being done by the immigrants being brought in, who of course come from very impoverished countries compared to the UK, if we just focus on the UK, but this is across the Western world,
they're doing what they call now, it's not menial jobs, it's, sorry, I can't remember the latest euphemism, the people who work in Amazon, the packers, the delivery people, all the jobs that supposedly English or British people don't want to do.
What they mean is they won't do them for the salaries that these companies are paying.
So by bringing these people in, they will do these jobs.
And in the 2021 census, I think it's 34% of all jobs of this type in the UK are being done by immigrants.
I doubt it's even higher now.
And he says, we kind of know this, we look around, we see, you know, The people who are, you know, the women who come in to clean the numerous hotels of London, you know, at four o'clock in the morning, are, you know, kind of coming in from, they're kind of Brazilian cleaners, Spanish, you know, all that sort of stuff.
The people are doing the jobs for the lowest possible wages.
He says, by bringing them in, generally the multinationals, the large corporations, the companies who have got at least over a thousand employers, Who have got the resources to bring these people in and kind of, you know, vouch for them that they can employ them over here.
They're able to drive down salaries for workers.
And it says not only in that industry, but in other industries as well.
So the first thing it does is it drives down the overheads of the companies that are employing them.
Because immigrants will work for considerably less than native workers of the UK or indeed any other country.
Now that's just a fact, yeah?
But he also says it does something else.
He says it has an effect, and he kind of produces figures on all about this, on lowering wages for all workers in that country.
Now, I've looked into the statistics on this, and basically between 2004 and 2024, just to take this kind of time span, the wages of the lowest fifth percentile, sorry, the lowest fifth salaries of the UK population have pretty much claimed they stayed exactly the same.
So, the kind of thing that I said by the woke and the pro-immigration people that Immigration is actually bringing something to this country, it's actually not doing that at all.
The first thing it's doing is lowering the wages of the already poorest elements, proportion of our society.
The working class, the very lowest levels of the working class, the people are doing the worst paid jobs.
So that's a benefit.
The overheads of the companies employing them drop down.
But at the other time, it does something else as well.
It also increases the burden on the taxpayer, because as I said, When they come into the country, they need a city the size of Glasgow every year and all the infrastructure around it.
Now, that's not played well by the employers.
It's paid for by the state, which means, of course, us, the taxpayers.
So the burden of bringing these people in, initially, it's paid for by the companies who've got to bring them in, but the housing of those people, the providing of healthcare, the infrastructure to build a car, these homes and stuff, this is all being paid for by the state, which means by the taxpayer.
So the burden of bringing them in is paid for by us.
So there's a transfer of public funds of the native population, the tax base of the native population, into the profits of the corporations employing them.
The other thing this does, and he talks about this, he says there's some problems that come from this.
The native population aren't going to like this, particularly the people who are most affected by it, the working class whose jobs are not only being taken by these workers, but their own other jobs are being deflated as well, the salaries of their jobs.
He says, He says something very interesting.
He says the response to this replacement immigration, this economic plan, this is what it is, will depend on who benefits from it and who doesn't benefit from it.
If you're one of the people whose jobs are getting replaced and whose salaries are being depressed because of replacement immigration, you're going to be opposed to it.
If you're someone who's looking for, I don't know, a Spanish nanny, Or a Brazilian care worker or something like that.
Someone to clear your hospital or whatever.
You're going to be in favour of it.
If the difference between the lifespan of the wealthiest parts of the UK and the poorest parts is 20 years.
When I was referring to this ageing population, not everyone's ageing.
The working class of the UK is not ageing.
It's the wealthier people who are ageing.
And they want this working class, this immigrant working class, To produce the money which is going to go into their pensions.
The other thing it does is this.
When you increase the number of workers in a country, the GDP will go up, the gross domestic product.
Germany has a bigger, considerably bigger gross domestic product than the UK, not only because it's more productive, but because there's 80 million people there compared, or probably over that now, compared to our 69.
When you increase the population, and remember by 2050 our population according to the UN policy document is going to be twice that, even if it doesn't reach that, it's going to expand enormously, the GDP goes up.
Now the people who benefit from that is not us, It's the companies who profit from the buying and the selling and the production of that gross domestic product.
But the proportion of GDP per capita diminishes.
Our GDP will go up, but because there's eventually twice as many people here, our share of that GDP is going to go down.
So not only are we paying for these vast numbers of immigrants to come in here, And it's going to diminish the services that we're getting from the state, which our taxes are paying for, but we're also going to have more people supported by that increased GDP. The wealth of the richest people go up,
the wealth of the poorest go down, and all of us, the people in between, are Share of that GDP is going to be diminished.
It's a genius economic plan, and it explains a lot about what I said before.
There are bigger plans, I think, than simply an economic one, but there's a big motivation for the most powerful companies in the world to get on board with this plan.
They're like, well, what's it in for me?
Why should I pay to get these people over here?
You say, this is going to reduce your overheads, and you're going to get the state's Who are housing this to pay for the housing of these people.
They're going to pay for their medical care, the education of their children, their retirement.
They're going to pay all for that and you're going to get all the profits from their working life.
The other answer to your question, do you want to comment on that before we go on to the question?
Yes, I do.
So we were warned about this.
The movies always tell us, in Blade Runner, won't we?
When in Blade Runner, it's the corporations that have become, have the power of nation states.
Yeah, of course.
And I see that.
You mentioned earlier that at Davos, you said the 1,200 most powerful companies in the world, it's their sort of, it's their trade union.
Yeah, it's a good description.
Yeah.
So I get that point.
And the super rich, obviously, are going to be pushing it.
And...
Yeah.
The second point is...
Let me just gloss that a little bit further.
You hear people like Jeremy Corbyn and his woke acolytes always saying, oh, immigrants.
Without immigrants, the NHS would collapse.
Without immigrants, who's going to do all the jobs and all this sort of stuff?
This September, the Office for Budget Responsibility, which is a...
It's actually, I think the government handed over...
It's an organisation which has been promoting the benefits of immigration for many, many years.
It pretends to be independent, doesn't it?
And it released this report.
It took me ages to find it.
And God, it's difficult to kind of find the actual information.
But it looked, it reported on the actual kind of economics of immigration.
And it came out with a It was made public, in a way, by that article in The Telegraph, which kind of sifted through and came out with the figures.
And the bottom line was, 5% of immigrants actually make a net economic contribution to the UK. 5%.
The number of doctors, scientists, and engineers, which Jeremy Corbyn always says, oh, you know, it's becoming kind of a cliche now, a kind of a joke, oh, there goes another doctor or scientist.
It's respectively 0.6 and 0.8 of the immigrants coming in.
I'm willing to believe there's probably more nurses, but the vast majority of the immigrants coming in here are actually a burden on the state.
And the Office of Budget Responsibility produced some figures on this.
It said that 54% of immigrants coming in are earning less than half of the average UK income.
By the time they reach the age of 81, which is the average life expectancy in this country, they will cost the UK taxpayer something like 485,000, so nearly half a million quid, because of the burden of supporting them.
This is exactly what replacement immigration is.
We pay For the profits that the companies are taking out of them.
So this idea that immigrants are making a net contribution to the UK is simply not true.
And the OBR, the Office of Budget Responsibility, said we have tried to look at the various scenarios of how this is going to play out by 2050.
They've all got this kind of date line.
Very interesting, isn't it?
Even if we pay immigrants more, if somehow we get these multinational companies, which, you know, we can't even get them to pay tax in this country, to pay their poor little immigrants more, it's not going to make any difference.
It says, by 2050, our current debt to GDP ratio, so how much the state owes compared to how much the country is producing every year, is going to increase from its current absolutely huge percentage of 100%.
We hit 100% a couple of months ago.
Hooray for us.
Thanks to lockdown, partly.
By 2050, it's going to be between something like 260 and 350%.
And they said this is completely unsustainable.
And for once, I agree that that's the correct use of that word.
It is completely unsustainable.
They are bankrupting this country.
They are putting us in debt forever for the profits of the organizations.
So that's the last thing I'm going to say on the economic.
But there's another point which you actually have already said.
In doing this, the transnational technocracies The UN, the United Nations, the European Commission, the European Union, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the G7, the World Health Organization, the World Economic Forum.
There seems to be more and more and more of them.
And these are the people that Starmer has met, the heads of them, over the last few months since he became Prime Minister.
He doesn't need to meet anyone who's actually from this country.
These are the people who are controlling our country.
All these organisations, through this process of replacement immigration, they're not simply replacing the native populations of these countries, They are replacing, they already have to a certain extent, but it's going to get even further.
The more this happens, the greater their control over those populations.
This last week or last month, a few weeks ago, Giorgio Maloney, the Prime Minister of Italy, who was kind of voted in, one of her platforms was, we are going to stop immigration because Italy, of course, being close to North Africa is one of the great big conduits through into Europe and Italians are getting increasingly worried about it.
You know, for a long time, Italy has been a very kind of homogeneous population and now it's getting huge numbers of North Africans and so on coming in.
And she was voted in on this, but then she became kind of completely subservient to the UN and NATO and all that.
She's a WEF group.
But she sort of made this gesture of, kind of like our Rwandan sort of fake policy, of she wanted to take a group of immigrants who'd come into Italy, I don't know if it was legally or otherwise, And take them back to, I can't remember what it was, was it Albania or something like that?
And process them there.
Say, okay, you're not going to come into Italy.
And her own courts, her own courts of Italy said, no, you can't do that.
It's illegal.
And they were doing it on a precedent set by the European courts.
Now that says loud and clear, as if we need it said anymore.
The nation state doesn't exist.
It might exist vaguely as a culture anymore.
Although that's also being replaced, because this is also a replacement of our history, our culture, what you said before, the sense of a country, of a nation, of people, with a history and a culture and identity.
That's all being replaced.
But it's to further the control of these transnational technocracies, which are always a front The people behind them, the corporations and the power elite.
They're the ones who are running it, and they run it through these transnational technocracies, which are meant to form into a, which are forming into a, kind of, openly into a world government, and they control our nation state.
The United Nations, which was set off after the Second World War, has one, one overriding goal, and that is to eradicate the nation state.
The European Union, which began as a series of trade agreements, it was the EEC, the European Economic What was it?
European Economic...
I can't remember now.
Corporation or whatever.
Community.
Community, that's right.
It started us as a series of trade agreements.
Then it became kind of legal things, you know, get human rights in there and democracy and all that sort of stuff.
And when everyone starts talking about human rights and democracy, you know they're about to come in and say, actually, we're going to take control of your politics.
And sometime over the last few decades, the European Union has turned into what the UN is.
It's about erasing the control...
Of the nation state by the governments, the national governments elected by the people of that state.
And replacement immigration is both a product of that and also a furtherance of it as well.
And what we're seeing, this kind of relentless attack on the identity of the British people, which of course is itself composed of the English, the Welsh...
Northern Irish and I see us all as part of the British Isles because this is happening in Ireland as well.
This erasure is about telling us that we don't deserve our own country.
We don't deserve to live here.
That we are bad.
That everything wrong with the world is the fault of white people.
That the entirety of British history can be reduced to all the evils of the British Empire, which were universally bad.
This assault on our history, our values, our way of behaving with each other, all the things that used to make England kind of one of the...
I remember, I'm still old enough.
We're old enough, aren't we, to remember when people used to take Mickey out of us and being polite for queuing.
Yes.
God, we miss that now, don't we?
Because it's all gone.
And our policemen didn't carry guns.
Now our policemen look like they're about to invade Iraq.
They're paramilitaries now, aren't they?
All that has been erased.
One of the things I talked about in my articles was this video released by the Home Office, which was supposedly about addressing violence against women I've looked at statistics on that.
The incidents of sexual assault, sexual harassment, like incidents of stabbings and machetes now.
When did England have groups of gangs running around with machetes?
This has all happened, this has all risen with Immigration, I've got the statistics of that.
But they don't want to address that.
They produce these, it's just men.
Men are the problem.
And in this video, there's a series of incidents, staged obviously, of men in some way acting inappropriately, harassing Being rude to or making women feel threatened.
Now, every single woman except one, it's about seven or eight incidents, is black or Asian.
There's one white woman, but every single man committing these offences is white.
Now, the truth is, it's actually the complete opposite for that.
We are constantly told that white people in our culture, in our entertainment industries, in our education, the white native population of Britain is represented as drunk, as unemployed, as violent, as useless, as...
No wonder we've got a problem with men dressing up in bloody dresses and calling themselves women.
We've got no idea how to be a man.
Whereas the incoming immigration population are represented as doctors, scientists, businessmen, fathers.
Now, I don't mind positive representations.
God knows we need it in this country because half the households which has a black head of household in this country are still living in poverty, which itself is an indictment of the failure of our immigration policy.
God knows with a huge number of, what is it, it's something like, I'm not going to quote these statistics, but it's a vast number, it's over 50%, of black households in this country are single-parent households.
That is a problem needs to address on all four positive role models for young black children, particularly men.
But that doesn't mean representing every white native-born person here as unemployed, as a sexual predator, as useless.
There is an attack on us.
That's a whole other...
We could do a whole show on this, couldn't we?
We could go back to that classic sitcom, Men Behaving Badly, where men are portrayed as just these children.
I mean, actually, similarly, the Top Gear performed...
Everyone thinks of Clarkson as being their ally.
Everyone, you know, tells it like it is.
But actually, look what he's just done recently.
He's just gone on to a vegan diet and is singing the praises of...
No, surely not.
...from jab injury.
These characters, they're all actors.
They all get co-opted in the end.
The TV, as you rightly say, it's male, toxic...
Toxic masculinity.
That's a word, isn't it?
Toxic masculinity.
White people are just kind of stupid and racist.
We deserve to be...
The ultimate message is we don't deserve to have our own country.
The primary basis of WOKE, I know you want to sum up here so I'll come up, is that all white British people are racist, whether they know it or not.
All of us.
You, me, and everyone we know.
England is a systemically racist country, and every institution in the country is institutionally racist.
That's the premise of Woke.
It's a deeply racist ideology.
The consequences of that is that we don't deserve to have our own country, that we should be replaced in our country.
Whether it's a good thing or bad, that doesn't matter.
We don't deserve our own country.
That is the primary message of Woke.
I hope you'll put up links to my articles because it's an enormous topic.
I think I'm going to put it out as a book because it's too big in a way to read online.
It's not too big but it's easier to read it in a book.
I want to get across a number of things.
The replacement immigration, not the great replacement because that's part of the discourse.
Replacement immigration is not a conspiracy theory.
It's UN policy.
Its goals are Economically supported for the people implementing it, these transnational technocracies.
And all the ideologies which so many British people, not just white, people have been here for a long time and don't want to see, as you say, they don't want to see England turn into another place.
They came here to live in England.
They came to become British or English with their own identities as well, but come here because they wanted to come to this country.
They also don't want to see England turn into what it is now, which is a bloody mess.
We're becoming aware that, as you said, this country is fundamentally changing.
We're fed up with seeing ourselves and everything that we value, our way of behaviour, our way that we regard women, the freedoms that we have, the education that our children are getting, our own control over our lives, not just at political level, but at every level.
This is all being erased.
It's very important that people understand why and how.
And I think if you understand, if you look at the figures that I've compiled and the documents behind them about replacement immigration, it will give you an idea of putting it all together.
When I went into this, I thought I was going to write a sort of 5,000-word article, and it's just got bigger and bigger and bigger.
It's an extraordinary topic.
I'm quite new to it in a way.
Which is kind of good because I'm surprising myself in what I'm kind of unearthed or other people who've been sending me stuff because there's a lot of people working on this.
It's very important that we understand this.
It's not a conspiracy.
This is a policy which has already changed the UK almost beyond recognition and will do over the course of our lifetimes.
Our children will grow up in a country which you and I are very mechanized.
That is a fact unless we do something about this.
Yes, it's deliberate, it's planned, and they don't want you to know.
That's a good summary.
But of course the other thing is, just very briefly, all those people who want to go onto the streets and protest against this stuff, I totally understand the impulse that leads these people to To want to send a signal to their government that they don't like what's going on.
But what they don't seem to understand is that democracy is so broken that they have, that Britain has no sovereignty, America has no, Americans have no say in the sovereignty of their, that the nation state is over.
And until you direct your ire at the true people responsible for this, the institutions, you know, be it the Triadal Commission or Bilderberg or the Committee of 300 or whatever, You're actually, all you're doing is giving the paramilitary police and the oppressive Keir Starmer boot boy trunching up your arse state,
you're just giving them the excuse they need to target you as a white nationalist or whatever.
And it's not going to change anything, is it?
There's a lot of reasons why people demonstrate.
I don't feel myself that I should say people should or shouldn't demonstrate.
I think there's a real problem with doing it under the banner of free Tommy Robinson or something like that.
I think we've talked about the role that these figures play.
They're owned.
We saw that undercover.
One of the things in those demonstrations, they didn't change anything.
Those marches that you and I, I think you described them as a kind of Edenic kind of event, a kind of community.
I agree.
I think lots of people have said similar things to me.
I felt it myself.
That's why I went to them.
They were beautiful.
It's also about supporting people who feel constantly that they're being attacked by government after government, by their MPs, by, you know, people write to their MPs saying, you know, what's going on with my street?
Why has this happened?
And the MP says, you're racist.
You know, one of the reasons I wrote these articles is because I got fed up with my people, the British people, who are not all white, Being called racist, far-right thugs and conspiracy theorists.
I got fed up with it.
I wanted to show that they were none of those things.
Even my last article, because when I read the first three, it's not happy reading.
You probably had a look at them.
They're not happy reading.
People said, what are we going to do about it, Simon?
Which is the difficult one.
But in trying to do that, I'd gone into it.
And the fourth article...
I've come up with some, I call it solutions, and I've come up with it.
And I'm trying to imagine, I've got to say, imagine if we don't want our children to grow up in the kind of country that I've depicted here as accurately as I can in the future, by 2050.
What can we do to change that?
And there's a number of things we can do.
They're big things, and it means taking back our country.
There's no simple way of doing this.
I'm not sure if you're saying this, but I don't want to say there's nothing we can do about it.
There is something we can do about it because we're still the majority.
We're being ruled by tiny minorities.
Even the people who are, you know, they're not in control of the country, but they put that, this policeman in charge of our country, that 20%, they are a minority.
And an extremist minority, the beliefs that they hold are not held by you or I, or probably 99.9% of the people listening who will listen to this program.
Beliefs that go against everything we know about history, biology, geopolitics, everything.
They're completely mad ideas.
None of them, we don't support them, and yet we're being ruled by them.
We can still take this back.
We need to reverse the incredibly, overwhelmingly universally negative effects of woke ideology.
On our education, our medical institutions, our media, our parliament, that all needs to be shut down.
People really need to realise what woke is.
Woke is a highly authoritarian, incredibly damaging ideology.
We need to get rid of it from all our institutions.
We need to, first of all, because I was looking at...
I thought, why don't I look at this issue of birth rates?
Now, I think it's a straw man in a way, but how can we increase the birth rate?
Because it is going down.
It's going down enormously.
Ideology is producing that.
We're being told that white people don't deserve to reproduce, that critical race theory says that white people don't deserve to live, so we should stop reproducing.
There actually are white people who say, I'm not having children because we're all going to die from global warming, global boiling.
There's been an enormous increase in what I call non-reproductive sexuality.
It's more people identifying, particularly young people, you know, here in the UK... 1 in 10 people between 16 and 24 identify as either gay, lesbian or bisexual.
Now, I've got no problem with that, but that is an unreproductive sexuality.
At the age of 60, do you know what it is?
0.6%.
Now that shows it goes up.
It's doubled in the last 20 years.
It's more than doubled.
They're promoting ideologies targeted at our children, our youth, which is reducing our birth rates.
The other thing I've shown in my last one is the white working class of this country, when I say this country I mean the UK, is their birth rates are declining enormously and the primary producer of that is their poverty and the major contributor to that is the cost of housing.
You know before I talked about between 1964 and 2024, 60 years, birth rates Have reduced by one child per woman.
House prices have gone up 600% in that time, in real terms, in real terms, allowing for inflation.
Housing poverty is a real way of producing poverty, particularly amongst the working class, and it stops them reproducing.
And the bulk of the working class of this country, which still constitutes 70% of the country, is the white working class.
So if we do want to address it, I get what you're saying.
I say it myself in my article.
This really is a straw man.
It's kind of like saying, well, the world is going to die through global boiling, so therefore we have to take away all your rights and freedoms and take over your country.
It is a straw man.
But it's also an issue as well.
It is an issue.
We have got declining birth rates.
All of this seceding, the UK seceding from all these transnational...
Organisations, the UN, the EC, we need to do that because they've got control of our country, and the only way we're going to get it back is from leaving those organisations.
So there's a whole range of...
I want to come up with some solutions and not just simply say, well, we're all screwed.
There are things we can do about this, but we have to understand how these aspects fit together, what the Great Reset has got to do with it, because they all are part of...
A plan with many roots and with many threads, but they all lead to one thing.
We get poorer and they get more powerful.
They get more power over us.
And that's what replacing immigration is about.
Well, thank you so much, Simon.
I agree that the best way Of undermining the enemy is to show their workings, to show what they're doing, because they want to keep this stuff secret.
And you've done that beautifully in your four book-length articles.
Well done.
Well done for doing that.
You've played your role.
I'm going to give you the order of the Dellingpole, Simon.
Wonderful.
I could finally retire.
I'm doing this shit when I don't have the attention span to.
Thank you.
Please tell people Great talking to you again.
How can people find your stuff?
I think the best way is to go on to my X account.
It's easy to remember.
It's at simonelmer2022 Which is the date when I had to restart my account after my last one was shut down under lockdown.
And from there, you can find all the links that go onto my website.
Remember, my website has a very long name and stuff.
You'll presumably put a link afterwards so they can go directly to these articles.
Yes, I will.
But if you want to follow the stuff I'm doing, that's the best way.
I spend quite a lot of time on there talking about this stuff and also giving links to my articles.
It's been lovely talking with you again, James.
I hope it won't be two years before the next one.
I'm sure there'll be enough.
No, no, no.
I wish I could say I can't see you in Hong Kong.
Yeah, that'd be lovely.
It's the EMF that I can't handle.
It's just so 5G. But I'll tell you what, I feel way less threatened by the Chinese than I do.
I mean, the Chinese seem benign compared to what's going on in Hong Kong.
I'm trying to work out what is going on over here.
It's very different.
There's a lot of things, but one thing is the grown-ups are at least in control.
You do feel that you're living in an adult society here.
It doesn't mean it's all benign, but there is kind of an adult discourse going on.
The UK, when I went back this summer, I just felt I'd gone into a crèche I kind of have a creche full of grown children who are just screaming at each other.
And that's not the society that you and I grew up with.
I don't recognise that country anymore.
No.
No, it's not.
I think you're right.
I think that creche analogy, a car creche maybe.
That's a good one.
No, it is pretty, yeah, it's bad.
Thank you Simon, Elmer, for appearing on this podcast.
Thank you dear viewers and listeners for watching.
Somebody said to me the other day, you sound like you don't need the money or something, or other people that sound more desperate.
I've always hated the hard sell.
I like doing these podcasts, but it doesn't mean that I don't...
I also like being supported.
So do.
Please fail to support me on Substack, on Locals.
You can buy me a coffee.
Support my sponsors.
You get only access to my stuff, and you also get that warm glow of satisfaction of knowing you've given money to a good cause rather than an evil cause, which is what most things in the B system are.
Thank you again, Simon Elmer.
I'm now going to have that coffee with the wife.
Thank you, James.
Love me talking with you again.
Bye-bye.
And I'm feeling both excited and a little bit sad.
The reason I'm excited is because I've got this amazing event coming up.
It's called James and Dick's Christmas Special.
Can you guess what it involves?
That's right.
It's James and Dick on a stage, just chatting the usual rubbish, but with an intimate audience.
And it will be surrounded by drinks with a cash bar.
Woodfire pizzas will be available.
You have to pay for them, but I think you'll want to feed.
And most important of all, you will be surrounded by like-minded folk.
I mean, that's the real point of this event.
Obviously, Dick and I will probably say some funny things.
And by the way, I don't think I'm going to record this event, so it's like, be there or miss it totally.
There'll be a cash bar.
I've insisted on a cash bar this time after the disaster at the last event where people went to a pub and found it was card only, which is a bit off-brand.
It's going to be in Northamptonshire.
You'll get the details as soon as you buy your ticket.
My big worry is that tickets are selling out quite fast.
There are not that many.
It's not like one of my big London events and you're going to These intimate ones are probably more fun in a way because you get more access.
I don't know, something like that.
Anyway, lots of the usual suspects are coming.
Oh, and Dick's Band!
Dick's Band Unregistered Chickens are headlining.
There'll probably be other special guests too, I don't know.
I mean, I'm not promising.
But anyway, if you want tickets to this event, which is on the 30th of November, that's a Saturday, So you can make a weekend of it, if you like.
You know, book somewhere and have a nice weekend in the Northamptonshire countryside.
I'll let you know hotel recommendations and stuff.
If you want to come to this thing, it's on the 30th of November, Saturday.
Starts at 5pm.
You can get tickets at my website, which is jamesdellingpole.co.uk forward slash Christmas 2024.
