RUPERT Lowe has embarked on a one-man crusade in recent days. Cut loose from the shackles of Reform, his former party, Lowe is making the most of his seat in Parliament to hold the government to account on immigration. And oh boy, is he doing a glorious job of it.
By asking hard questions, Lowe has discovered that at least £6.6billion has been spent by government departments, councils, the NHS, and others on costs associated with supporting asylum seekers and refugees since 2020. That figure included £634,182 on a contract to ‘Support Migrants Currently Living in the Community Who Do Not Have Permission to Live in the UK’ in which just 84 migrants participated.
He’s also discovered that in 2024 the Department of Work and Education spent £1.1billion on universal credit ‘paid to households where at least one claimant’s Habitual Residence Test (HRT) concluded they held refugee status’. The figure is equivalent to 1.8 per cent of the total universal credit spend.
While some in Westminster ummed and aahed and pointed out that British households who took in a Ukrainian refugee would could be among those figures, Lowe had no time for such niceties:
In a long post on X, Lowe put forward a raft of policies and measures, some of which are just plain statements of common sense:
‘Let’s stop pretending that all cultures are equal. They are not. We should stop importing, en masse, cultural practices into our country that are entirely incompatible with the British way of life.’
Others were quite radical, but arguably ‘radical’ is what’s currently needed:
‘Launch Operation Return’ Start a big voluntary scheme with generous allowances for certain individuals to leave. Separate to that, regional detention centres located near airports, or even construct new runways. Begin with the 10,000 foreign criminals in our prisons. We know where they are, and where they are from. Deport them. Rank it based on threat.’
It’s frankly astonishing that of the 650 MPs, just one is asking these sorts of questions and formulating these sorts of policies. If Lowe can do it, why can no one else? (It’s even more astonishing that he was thrown out of his party for doing so, but that’s another matter).
Perhaps the answer is that they don’t really want to.
One Colourful Ring to Rule Us All
It’s often said that Sir Keir Starmer has never knowingly uttered an honest word, but occasionally some truth does slip out. Take this admission in a speech delivered in Downing Street in November 2024:
‘What the British people are owed is an explanation. Because a failure on this scale isn’t just bad luck, it isn’t a global trend or taking your eye off the ball. No – this a different order of failure. This happened by design, not accident. Policies were reformed deliberately to liberalise immigration.’
Starmer failed to give an explanation for failure on this scale. Here is the explanation from the UN:
Transcript:
‘Migration is a global phenomenon that touches us all. Many of us know someone who has moved to another country, or have migrated ourselves.
‘By embracing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals, we have an unmissable opportunity to harness the development potential of migration; to support beneficial outcomes, starting with reducing inequalities and putting the right policies in place to ensure safer, more orderly, and regular migration.
‘Migration has been a long-standing coping strategy for people to pull themselves out of poverty, to cope with lack of basic infrastructure or search for better opportunities. People’s reasons to move can also be influenced by conflict, natural hazards or environmental conditions linked to climate change, and, in a global context of rapid urbanisation, movement of people is increasingly taking place to cities and urban areas, enriching local communities and societies, both where migrants are and where they come from.
‘The knowledge, skills, and experience that migrants bring and gain in new places contribute to the labour force in key sectors such as health, and play a vital role in building diverse and productive societies.
‘Migration can empower women economically and socially and help people realise their personal aspirations and educational potential. This encourages innovation, which benefits science, technology and industry.
‘With increased earnings, migrants are able to send financial support to family members back home. This is critical to help reduce hunger and strengthen the resilience and sustainability of poorer communities.
‘But none of these benefits are guaranteed. We can only achieve all of this by upholding human rights, fostering peace and security, ensuring equal access to justice and protection from exploitation for all. We also need to build strong partnerships in our cities, within our countries and regions and globally through international cooperation.
‘Migration is everyone’s business. Together, we can ensure that we leave no one behind.’
Sound familiar? It should, these are the talking points we’ve been fed about immigration for the last 30 years. ‘Diversity’, ‘empowerment’, ‘human rights’ – all the buzz words are in there. Even the lie that migration brings much needed skills to the health industry. This UN program is why machete-wielding men from Eritrea are passed off as potential doctors and architects in the making.
You may recall the Global Goals from my recent article showing how the BBC is tied into the deep state — that network of NGOs, quangos and charities used by Western nations to exert control over the rest of the world. Here again we see that logo, the colours in a ring representing the 17 goals, worn as a pin by people like Bill Gates. It’s all part of the same Liberal International Order, the supra-structure of multilateral institutions like the United Nations, World Trade Organization and International Monetary Fund that have been pursuing global governance since the 1940s.
So the short answer is simply: we are experiencing unprecedented, country-destroying levels of migration because it’s part of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. But that answer is a little too simplistic.
To get our country back, it’s not enough to know which policy unprecedented migration was enacted under. In order to reverse it, we must also understand the reason for it.
The official reason is that immigration is required to make up for dwindling birth rates. For example, the Pew Research Centre last year published analysis which showed that in Germany, the Czech Republic, Italy and Portugal, the population grew between 2000 and 2020, but would have declined in that time if not for immigration. In Japan, Romania, Greece and Hungary, the population fell during that time, and would have declined further if not for immigration.
The UN itself promotes this line. In the year 2000, the United Nations published a paper titled Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?’ You can download the full paper by clicking here.
The paper models migration requirements for eight countries — France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, and the United States — and in two regions — Europe and the European Union — between 1995 and 2050.
It looks at five scenarios:
- Migration levels remain as they were in 1995
- Zero immigration from 1995 onwards (a ‘backdrop’ scenario against which to measure the effects of migration)
- The level of immigration required to keep the population at 1995 levels
- The level of immigration required to keep the working age population at 1995 levels
- The level of immigration needed to keep the ratio between the working age population and retirement age population (65+) at 1995 levels.
The paper found that:
‘In the absence of migration all eight countries and the two regions with fertility below replacement will see their total population start declining before 2050 and their populations in the working-age group 15-64 years will decline even faster. Their populations will also age very rapidly. However many, if not most of them, have had immigrants in the recent past, and can be expected to have immigrants in the future also.’
The question, then, is how many immigrants?
Here are the resultant projections:
On these figures, for Britain to maintain its current ratio of workers to retirees (about 4:1) we would need to import nearly 60million migrants between 1995 and 2050. That would result in migrants who arrived in 1995 and after making up nearly 60 per cent of our population, which would total more than 136million (better get building on the green belt!)
But we actually come off quite lightly. In fact, of all the countries and regions studied, we’d still have the highest proportion of natives to newcomers. In Korea, the ratio would be 99 migrants to every Korean, and some 6.2billion people would be crammed into their corner of the world.
The paper doesn’t argue for any one scenario over the others, but by looking at the figures, we can figure out which scenario is being pursued.
According to House of Commons Library, as of June 2023, approximately 18 per cent of the population of England and Wales were foreign-born (astonishingly, 9 per cent of the population do not hold British citizenship), or about 11.4million people.
This chart shows projections for the numbers of migrants to the UK under the five scenarios:
From it, we can see that under scenario IV — the working age population remains stable — the immigrant population of the UK was projected to be just over 3million by 2025. However, under scenario V — the ratio of working age people to retirees — we would expect to have some 23million newcomers by now. So our governments have been pursuing a course somewhere between these two.
Interestingly, the paper notes that another way to maintain the ratio of workers to retirees is to increase the retirement age. What would that look like?
‘In the absence of migration (scenario II), the figures show that the ratios between population […] would remain in 2050 at their 1995 levels if [the retirement age] were increased from 65 years to about 72 years in the United Kingdom, 73 years in the Russian Federation, 74 years in France and in the United States, 77 years in Germany, Italy and Japan, and 82 years in the Republic of Korea.’
So it seems our government has decided to adopt a mixed strategy of increasing immigration and increasing the retirement age to avoid the extremes of either option.
But wait. Section A of the chart above shows how much net migration is needed to reach each target. Under scenario IV, the number required is about 120,000 a year; for scenario V it’s closer to a million. Looking at the actual migration figures, we can see that until 2020, net migration figures were indeed somewhere between the two targets. But in 2020 migration shot up dramatically, with net migration just about hitting the target set under Scenario V.
This suggests that in the last few years the policy has shifted, from pedalling somewhere between the two most extreme scenarios to a full-out tilt at achieving the most ambitious immigration targets set by the United Nations. Remember, that scenario would see more than 130million people living in the UK by 2050!
All of this is being pursued solely so that the ratio of workers to retirees can be kept at around 1995 levels: four workers to every retiree. That’s it. That’s the only reason given.
Read this paragraph, taken from the paper’s conclusions:
‘The new challenges being brought about by declining and ageing populations will require objective, thorough and comprehensive reassessments of many established economic, social and political policies and programmes. Such reassessments will need to incorporate a long-term perspective. Critical issues to be addressed in those reassessments would include: (a) the appropriate ages for retirement; (b) the levels, types and nature of retirement and health-care benefits for the elderly; (c) the labour-force participation; (d) the assessed amounts of contributions from workers and employers to support retirement and health-care benefits for the increasing elderly population; and (e) policies and programmes relating to international migration, in particular replacement migration, and the integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants.’
This is government by mathematical modelling; government by spreadsheet; government by clipboard. It’s technocracy: government by faceless technocrats, crunching numbers to direct society along the most mathematically amenable lines.
None of it takes into account culture, compatibility, humanity. The word ‘culture’ doesn’t appear once in the 177 pages of the paper. It’s as though it doesn’t exist. Humans are viewed only through the lens of productivity, as economic units to be moved around globally as needed.
Reclaiming Our Humanity
Interestingly, the reasons for reproductive decline in the studied nations are never examined. Why exactly are Europeans having fewer and fewer children? Why is it that a significant number of women — as many as a third in Canada, according to one study —don’t want to have children? One young woman wrote that she didn’t want kids because mothers ‘are expected to give up [their] freedom and identity’. What social trend taught her to prize freedom and identity above motherhood? Could that trend be reversed? Many others would like children but are failing to find partners, or are being forced into work by a system that views humans only as ‘productivity units’.
Far from being dismissed, these questions are never even raised by the study. Reproductive decline is taken as a fact, as an annoying glitch in an otherwise pristine system, requiring a reallocation of resources to overcome. Questions of childlessness, chosen or otherwise, are questions of humanity, of emotion, of desire. But just as the technocratic system is blind to the real world human consequences of importing a whole population in order to make up for a lack of workers, so it is blind to the causes of the problem in the first place.
The technocracy is machine-like, it has no way to compute the human element, and so it actually compounds the problem, forcing people to disconnect from their human desire for children in order to keep the economic cogs turning.
If we are to unpick this sorry mess we must start by first reclaiming our humanity. We must learn to stop seeing ourselves as economic units, and start to ask the questions that will allow us to create a society which welcomes children again. Only then can we start to rebuild strong, thriving communities and get our country back.
This article appeared on Freedom Radio on March 23, 2025, and is republished by kind permission.
