The great European cities will soon have nothing left of Christians but their monuments and their cemeteries

Guest Post from Sputnik (France)

Source:  “L’immigration de remplacement: quand l’ONU et l’UE or­ga­ni­sent la disparition des peuples“, SOCIETY, 12:03 14.05.2013.
Exclusive English translation for ModernFathers1867.

Replacement immigration:  when the UNO and the EU organize the disappearance of peoples

Replacement immigration:  when the UNO and the EU organize
the disappearance of peoples

Replacement immigration: when the UNO and the EU organize the disappearance of peoples

Recently, news which had gone relatively unnoticed was published despite the ban on “ethnic” statistics in Europe:  the population of London is now 45% indigenous (English “old stock”), 76% of the population of Brussels today is a direct or indirect result of immigration, and in île-de-France 60 % of births are from non-European populations.

This process of the rapid of erosion of European indigenous populations and their replacement by immigrant populations is not happening by chance. This policy, which will make the Christian or traditional population of Europe a minority, was determined in New York (UNO) and in Brussels (EU).  Is the pattern confined to indigenous Europeans or is it an immense commercial operation to the detriment of world populations?


As everyone knows, European demography has become a lost cause, the European “indigenous” populations are not producing enough children to renew their generations naturally. It is inevitable and the trend is noticeably intensifying. In contrast, African and Asian populations are undergoing an unprecedented demographic boom inversely proportional to quality of life and the resources available to local populations.  For this two-fold problem:  the quasi-disappearance of one, and the impoverishment and over­pop­u­lation of others, the UNO had found the solution, prolifically explained in its “Report on Replacement Migration published by the Population Division of the United Nations”.

Noting that the world demographic imbalance will result in an explosion of the African population (it will triple before the end of the century) and of the Asian population, inducing ever-increasing impoverishment and an insur­mount­able human and ecological crisis, U.N. elites worked out a plan of immigration to Europe (and to other so-called developed countries) which on the one hand will solve (or almost) the disappearance of the European population and on the other hand relieve third-world countries of the overpopulation which would become as grave as the demographic decline of the “old continent”.

Curiously, for the experts, the USA is a “demographic” exception.  Without providing too much of an explanation, they tell us that America, with its internal demographics, will experience a slight population increase.  Thus, not all “Westerners” are equal demographically, or at least that is the opinion of the UNO.  The USA thus has no need of immigrants.  They are “self-sufficient” demographically.

On the other hand, for Europe, the figures are at the very least enlightening:  In 2100, the indigenous European population will constitute less than one third of its inhabitants (170 million) versus a crushing majority of immigrants or people of immigrant origin (for a total of 520 million inhabitants, which is to say almost the same size as the current population).  The UNO thus decided to “recommend” immigration quotas aimed at the replacement of in­dig­e­nous Europeans who are demographically disappearing; this is the concept of “population replacement” which is being implemented.  “All countries and areas studied in this report will need a flow of immigration to prevent pop­u­la­tion decrease.  However, the level of immigration, relative to past experience, varies greatly. For the European Union, the maintenance of rates of immigration seen in the 1990s would be barely enough to avoid an overall drop in total population, while for Europe as a whole, twice the rate of immigration observed in the 1990s would be required.  ” (Extract from report of the UNO [translated])

At the end of the decade 1990-2000, the UNO recommended “importing” immigrants at the rate of up to 4,5 million individuals per year, while fully aware that the populations of immigrant origin already present were helping “old-stock Europeans” to improve their fertility.  Curiously, in the present decade, the figure has risen to 13.5 million per year.  At this rate, the same experts envisage that in 2050 some countries will exceed the ceiling for populations of immigrant origin by half (or nearly so).  Which means that the great European cities will soon have nothing left of Christians but their monuments and their cemeteries.  The latter being the only places where “whites” will be in the majority.

But far from blaming the immigrant populations, it is also necessary to analyze how the European Union began to implement its new so-called “selected” immigration policy.  The “Blue Card” project was launched by the Commission in 2007, and adopted in 2009 (European directive 2009/050 /CE).  This is a work permit given to residents of countries that are not mem­bers of the EU, which allows them more easily, on certain conditions, to come to work on the territory of the Union.

“The Blue Card employs the selected immigration system, the purpose of which is to make immigration in the long run more profitable for European countries.  It is intended only for skilled workers, which excludes the possibility of assisted immigration that is costly to the States and generates xenophobic sentiment among the population”.

This directive was particularly criticized by associations for the protection of immigrants and by African intellectuals who viewed the “brain drain” as a demonstration of neocolonialism, i.e., the organized flight of brains from the least developed countries to Western countries.  Grey matter is thus ef­fec­tive­ly extracted in the way that colonizing countries extract raw materials.

Which begs the question, who is benefiting from replacement immigration if it benefits neither the migrants nor the host countries, whose populations are extremely disfavored by the continuing immigration, often experienced as an invasion or, as president Putin would say, as a recolonization of the col­on­i­zers by their former colonies.

The UNO and the EU are supranational institutions which make joint decisions after submitting their projects to innumerable lobbies.  Above and beyond the sweet U.N. dreamers believing that population transfer by the hundreds of millions will save the planet, the main organizations who support this policy are the multinationals:  the oil, mining, the food-agricultural lobbies … Thus, an oligarchy is acting to satisfy its own financial interests; regardless that Africa becomes an intellectual desert and that Christian Europe disappears. On one hand, a market of 520 million consumers will always be better than a small market of 170 million Europeans, on the other, immigration will put pressure on wages to fill shortages of qualified manpower … when the economy is rebooted.

We must also question the deification of demography which in the long run constitutes a threat to humanity.  Ever more human beings, ever fewer resources and when the situation is locally unmanageable, our elites decide to transfer the world population to the detriment of others.  People become nothing but statistics, which reduces them to mere “dollar value”.

And we are not speaking here of the fanatic or ultra-fanatic extremist groups, we are presenting you here with decisions voted on by the United Nations, the very same which promotes the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man in the world.