The following piece is not my work. It is written by a friend of mine. I submitted it to MW to check whether it fitted in with his blog policies and he confirmed that it was suitable for publication. As ever my agenda is to engender a lively debate on here.
"In 2000 The United nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division published a report entitled ‘Replacement Migration Is It a Solution to Ageing and Declining Populations’. The driver behind this report is an economic ratio called the support ratio and which was used to produce various scenarios for mass migration.
Gullible and sycophantic policy makers in Europe used this flawed economic logic to drive social policy and therefore started The Great Replacement we are seeing today.
Under the United Nations own Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 9 December 1948 Article 2 it states
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
Clearly the policy of deliberate and calculated Replacement Migration is in direct conflict, if not in contravention of the United Nations own Charter Article 2 (c).
To put into context the United Nations replacement scenarios, Scenario IV is the most alarming. In order to maintain the support ratio at the 1995 level of 4.3 (working people for every non working person) it predicted that 701million immigrants would be required between 1995 and 2050 and by 2050, 75% of the population would be post 1995 immigrants or their descendants. To quote the report
Thus, if replacement migration were to be used as the mechanism for shoring up the potential support ratio in the European Union to its present level, the total population of the European Union would have grown to more than three times its present level.
If this proposal is not genocide as defined by the same organisation then I fail to see what else it can be. The arrogance of a political class to assume that a population should be and would wish to be replaced is staggering.
The premise behind the support ratio is to maintain the number of the working population in a ratio sufficient to support an ageing and retired population and other net claimants. In relation to the UK, when the welfare state was created by Bevin, the entire system was predicated on a certain support ratio and a de facto Ponzi scheme was created. It is now admitted that this support ratio has collapsed and the system by definition has no reserves. It is ultimately unsustainable and was doomed to fail the moment it was created.
Furthermore the support ratio is a far too simplistic driver to use for controlling population flows, as it fails to factor in private pension funds and those people able to meet their own retirement arrangements and it also catastrophically fails to factor in the social consequences of such a policy.
In its benign guise of multiculturalism, conniving politicians like Blair, thrust this replacement policy down the throats of the European people without asking and without revealing its true purpose, and left them to deal with the consequences of mass migration and integration of a mainly muslim influx. Any criticism was countered by espousing the benefits of migration and its enrichment of society and any criticism was silenced by the ostensibly socialist governments and the liberal left wing press by the charge of racism and the invention of a quasi medical condition named Islamaphobia.
The United Nations report is further flawed in the respect that it cites the falling birthrate in Europe to justify the need to have a replacement policy but it fails to recognise and therefore calculate that the vast majority of immigrants are muslim and breed at a much higher rate. Indeed, most governments have a blind eye policy to polygamy among the muslim population and as a result some men have multiple wives and as many as twenty children according to Baroness Cox a cross bench Peer. Rather than supporting an ageing population these families are usually a burden on the state therefore defeating the object of the policy in the first place, flawed though it might be. Even if such a policy was legitimate, which it is not, the consequences are great, as the majority of immigrants are largely uneducated, cannot speak the host language and are therefore not fit for purpose.
Not only have these immigrants failed to integrate and adapt to the customs of the host nations, they now agitate for their own customs and law to be adopted. Furthermore the increased militancy and support for the jihadists has produced the most horrific acts of violence against the very host Nations which allowed them to live there in the first place as witnessed by the recent murders in Paris.
The planned migration is now accelerated due to the mass migration of people fleeing the conflict in Syria or those using it as an excuse to find a way to Europe for other reasons and therefore must throw the planned policy of Replacement Migration into tatters.
In any event we should not sit here and quietly acquiesce to our own suicide, we should stand up and shout for the mealy mouthed politicians and the incumbents of the United Nations to prosecute themselves for genocide. If you stay silent then Europe will be a muslim country well before 2050.
Emeritus Professor Robert Rowthorn in his recent publication, The costs and benefits of Large-scale Immigration, has concluded that the fiscal impact of large scale immigration is slight while the long term demographic impact is great. Why therefore, when evidence is so conclusive, do politicians continue with this policy of madness.
In a meeting of the West Midlands Conservative Association in 1968 Enoch Powell, MP for Wolverhampton, made a speech, for which he was eventually dismissed, warning of the dangers of immigration. He said “It is like watching a Nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre” How right he was."
Over to you in the comments.