Documentary proof from the UN that an agenda of population replacement was driving the so-called ‘refugee crisis’

by Annie Dieu-Le-Veut

This is an extract from a discussion paper that you can download from a March 2000 article on the United Nations own website that proposes various options for population replacement across Europe and America.
As you read through the paper, it soon becomes apparent that the need to move people around what the powers-that-be clearly view as a planetary chessboard comes from the greed of those who profited from the high GDP that was created by the Babyboomers after the Second World War.

Afterwards, when birth levels fell back to the normal, they realised that they wouldn’t have so many minions making money for them – at the same time, they had spent the work-based pensions savings of that generation.  The global corporations also wanted to pay a lot less for their labour forces – and this is why you now have so many jobs only paying minimum wage with zero hours contracts.
Italian navy rescue asylum seekers

June 7, 2014 – Mediterranean Sea / Italy: Italian navy rescues asylum seekers traveling by boat off the coast of Africa. (Massimo Sestini/Polaris)

Here is the part of that discussion paper which deals with different scenarios of migration numbers to the UK. One of the scenarios would cause the overall population to reach 136 million by 2050, of which 80 million (59 per cent) would be post-1995 migrants or their descendants. At the current rate, they will be mainly Muslims, which means that the nation of the British people, three quarters of which can trace an unbroken line of descent through their genes to settlers arriving long before the introduction of farming 10,000 years ago, would come under the Islamic caliphate.

Scenario I, which is the medium variant of the 1998 United Nations projections, assumes a total of 1.2 million net migrants between 1995 and 2050. From 1995 to 2025, 40,000 persons would enter Britain annually and none after 2025. The overall population of the United Kingdom would increase from 58.3 million in 1995 to 59.9 million in 2025 and thereafter decline to 56.6 million in 2050 (the results of the1998 United Nations projections are shown in the annex tables). The population of working-age, aged 15- 64 years, would increase from 37.8 million in 1995 to 39.2 million in 2010; afterwards there would be a continuous decline to 33.4 million in 2050. By that date 1.9 per cent of the total population would be post-1995 migrants or their descendants. The population aged 65 or over, on the other hand, would increase from 9.2 million (15.9 per cent) in 1995 to 14.1 million in 2050 (24.9 per cent) in 2050. As a result, the potential support ratio would drop from 4.09 in 1995 to 2.37 in 2050.

Scenario II, which is the medium variant with zero migration, is based on the fertility and mortality assumptions of the medium variant of the 1998 United Nations projections, but without any migration to the United Kingdom after 1995. The overall population would decrease to 55.6 million in 2050, one million less than in scenario I; the population aged 15-64 years would decrease to 32.7 million, 700,000 less than in scenario I. The elderly population (aged 65 or older) would increase to 13.9 million in 2050, and the potential support ratio would be at 2.36. In general, only slight differences exist between scenarios I and II regarding the population trends of the country.

Scenario III keeps the population in the United Kingdom constant at its maximum of 58.8 million people in 2020. In order to do so, the United Kingdom would have to receive 2.6 million migrants between 2020 and 2050. In 2050, 5.5 per cent of the total population would be post-1995 migrants or their descendants. This influx would result in a population of labour-force age of 35 million in 2050, and the population aged 65 or older would reach 14 million in 2050, 24 per cent of the total population. The potential support ratio would be 2.5.

Scenario IV keeps the age group between 15-64 years constant at its maximum of 38.9 million from 2010 on. For this to happen, a total of 6.2 million immigrants would be needed between 2010 and 2050, which would increase the overall population to 64.3 million in 2050. By that date 13.6 per cent of the total population would be post-1995 migrants or their descendants. In 2050, the proportion of the elderly would be 22.9 per cent and the potential support ratio 2.6.

Scenario V does not allow the potential support ratio to decrease below the value of 3.0. In order to achieve this, no immigrants would be needed until 2020, and 13.7 million immigrants would be needed between 2020 and 2040, an average of 0.7 million per year during that period. By 2050, out of a total population of 74.4 million, 18.8 million, or 25 percent, would be post-1995 immigrants or their descendants.

Scenario VI keeps the potential support ratio at its 1995 level of 4.09. Keeping this ratio would require 59.8 million migrants between 1995 and 2050, slightly more than one million migrants a year on average. The overall population would reach 136 million in 2050, of which 80 million (59 per cent) would be post-1995 migrants or their descendants.

To read more, go to


Annie Dieu-Le-Veut is the author of several books on Sovereignty, shamanism, Earth magic, the Grail Mysteries and sacred sexuality.

books resized

2 comments

  1. Macrobius (@Macrobius1)

    Thanks Annie. I have read one of the UN’s documents on replacement migration before but couldn’t understand why we were also getting propaganda about overpopulation which they had a big push on about ten years ago, eventually getting David Attenborough on board. It seemed odd that we in the West were targeted as there was plenty of information about our falling populations and that it was considered a positive phenomenon. They thinking was if the developing world could be modernised they would follow the same trend of population decline with less demand placed on resources.

    We had the chance to put E F Schumacher’s ideas into practice. The globalist elite blew it. Why should we even care about anthropogenic climate change (if it wasn’t so dubious) when faced with genocide?

    You may find this information of interest too http://www.mediafire.com/file/69ur159gbdx2l43/Europe-reasons-Alain_Wagner.pdf

    Thanks again.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s