The concept of “The Great Replacement,” which holds that there are shadowy forces at work trying to dispossess and indeed obliterate physically the European peoples through the use of immigration, has been widely disparaged as a “far-Right conspiracy theory.” Paradoxically, this “conspiracy theory” is regarded by Establishment commentators as itself a “conspiracy” by the “far Right” to scapegoat immigrants and to scare-monger. Conspiracies do not exist — other than when they are “far Right.”
The Great Replacement was the term apparently first used by French author Renaud Camus  in his 2011 book Le Grand Replacement, referring particularly to Muslim migrants. A quick read of the Wikipedia entry on the subject, that ever-so-reliable source, states that “experts” have disproved the whole scenario by stating that the number of migrants do not support Camus’ alarmism, and further that the descendants of such migrants are as much Europeans of whatever nationality as anyone else. Hence, “Geographer Landis MacKellar criticized Camus’s thesis for assuming ‘that third- and fourth- generation “immigrants” are somehow not French.’”
The United Nations Organization, however, calls the same phenomenon by a similar term: “Replacement Migration.” These population shifts are taking place while at the same time there are moves to strengthen “hate speech” laws to stifle dissent.
Specifically, the United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration is the latest means of addressing “replacement migration” in the interests of sustaining economic growth. Little was known of the Global Compact before it was given publicity, largely by the Identitarian movement in Europe and especially by its Austrian branch, who subsequently underwent a torrent of abuse and State harassment.
I had heard little of it, and a Google search found that the UNO had remained strangely silent on the Compact. What public information there was largely came from the so-called “far-Right conspiracy theorists.” Checking their sources showed that they had not exaggerated or misrepresented the matter. My own subsequent research relied entirely on UN and other such sources, and not on any “Right-wing” source.
United Nations Global Compact
The United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration was signed on December 19, 2018 by 164 members of the UN General Assembly. 29 UN member states did not sign the compact, including the United States, Hungary, Austria, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Chile, Israel, and Australia. It is notable that the US, where the Compact had its origins, was not a signatory nation in 2018, as it was resisted by the Trump administration, which eschewed various globalist entanglements — as urged by that “deplorable” “Right-wing terrorist,” George Washington, in his “Farewell Address.” The Trump administration issued a strong statement that exposed the globalist agenda:
The United States did not participate in the negotiation of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration (“the Compact”), objects to its adoption, and is not bound by any of the commitments or outcomes stemming from the Compact process or contained in the Compact itself. The Compact and the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, which called for the development of the Compact and commits to “strengthening global governance” for international migration, contain goals and objectives that are inconsistent and incompatible with U.S. law, policy, and the interests of the American people.
The United States proclaims and reaffirms its belief that decisions about how to secure its borders, and whom to admit for legal residency or to grant citizenship, are among the most important sovereign decisions a State can make, and are not subject to negotiation, or review, in international instruments, or fora. The United States maintains the sovereign right to facilitate or restrict access to our territory, in accordance with our national laws and policies, subject to our existing international obligations.
We believe the Compact and the process that led to its adoption, including the New York Declaration, represent an effort by the United Nations to advance global governance at the expense of the sovereign right of States to manage their immigration systems in accordance with their national laws, policies, and interests. 
Apologists for the agreement state that it does not undermine national sovereignty, that it will make migration a more ordered and humane process, and eliminate people smuggling. The legal advice to the New Zealand government was that the compact is “non-binding,” and the apologists have used this to repudiate opposition. 
Lord Bates , Britain’s Minister of State at the Department for International Development, stated that “[t]he compact ‘protects every state’s right to determine its own immigration policies, including in areas such as asylum, border controls and returns of illegal migrants.”’  At the time, New Zealand’s Foreign Affairs Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, head of the populist New Zealand First Party and part of the Labour Government coalition, having based his political career largely on stricter immigration controls in his role as apologist for the Labour Government and as the New Zealand representative who signed the Compact, adopted the line of Lord Bates, Angela Merkel, et al.
Like Merkel and other European leaders who blamed the “far Right” for spreading “false information,” Peters claimed that the “Alt Right” in New Zealand was responsible for spreading misinformation about the Compact, but what he thought the “Alt Right” was in New Zealand is uncertain. More discernible at the time was the backlash among his own party’s grassroots. If Peters had been in opposition, he would surely have been the most vociferous opponent of the Compact. For his compromise, he was out of Parliament in the following General Election.
UN Declarations and Covenants
When viewed from the perspective of how the UNO functions and how its declarations, covenants, treaties, and compacts are implemented, however, it is pure cant for politicians to claim that there is no justification for popular misgivings. While the declaration is called “non-binding” and supposedly does not subvert national laws, myriad UN declarations have become “international law,” and it is “international law” to which the Migration Compact appeals.
Human rights and race relations acts implemented across the world are examples of the types of “international law” to which the Compact alludes, which were based on the 1948 UN Declaration on Human Rights and a multitude of continually proliferating laws emanating therefrom.
UN members are signatories to many UN “covenants” and “declarations,” and are consequently “obligated” [sic] to report to the UN regularly in regard to how these “covenants”-turned-law are being implemented. Under “universal periodic reviews,” these include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination , Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees , United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples , etc., etc.
What is a UN “universal periodic review”? In regard to UN conceptions of “human rights,” for example, the New Zealand government explains:
Under this mechanism, the human rights situation of all UN Member States is reviewed every 5 years. 42 UN Member States are reviewed each year in Geneva during three sessions dedicated to 14 States each. These three sessions are usually held in January/February, April/May and October/November. 
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade also explains UN sanctions against states that do not abide by “international law.”  When sanctions do not work, the bombing tends to start. Since the Migration Compact is an emanation of UN “international law,” it is nonsense to claim that this does not subvert the right of states to determine their own migration policies.
Policing of UN Laws
That the Migration Compact is based on other UN “covenants” that have become “international law,” with UN sanctions issued against those states deemed offenders, is indicated by the Compact’s “preamble.”  As with other UN declarations, much of the Migration Compact outlines the monitoring of compliance by signatory states. Sections entitled “follow-up” and “implementation” are devoted to this. The International Organization for Migration is the UN policing agency that enforces this.
In arguing for an increase of draconian measures against states deemed to be in violation of “international law,” Buhm Suk Baek of Cornell University points out that while the UN claims not to intervene in the internal affairs of members states,
[h]umanitarian intervention is based upon the doctrine that there are limits to the freedoms states have in dealing with their own nationals. It should be distinguished from actions to protect a state’s own nationals abroad. When this doctrine was defined by Dutch international scholar Hugo Grotius and other 17th century legal scholars, it allowed one or more states to use force to prevent another state from mistreating its own nationals in circumstances so brutal and widespread that they shocked the conscience of the international community. Such interference in a state’s domestic affairs is defended by the argument that if certain practices continue to take place in a state despite protest and objections by neighboring states, then humanitarian considerations outweigh the prohibition of intervention and justify a decision to interfere. 
As is often the case, “atrocity propaganda” is a prelude to the invasion of a targeted state that somehow offends the “international community.” It was the liquidation of the supposed tyrant Gaddafi that created a refugee crisis from Africa into Europe, about which Qaddafi had warned:
Tomorrow Europe might no longer be European, and even black, as there are millions who want to come in. What will be the reaction of the white and Christian Europeans faced with this influx of starving and ignorant Africans . . . we don’t know if Europe will remain an advanced and united continent or if it will be destroyed, as happened with the barbarian invasions. 
The UN Global Compact for Migration is intended to bring order to the chaos that globalist intervention has wrought on Libya and Syria, and wherever else the nebulous “international community” meddles.
Baek approvingly cites the example of the way Yugoslavia was targeted and reduced to ruin in the name of “human rights”:
Under Security Council Resolution 757, the Council imposed a wide range of economic sanctions on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) on May, 1992. These sanctions are also related to the protection of human rights as the Council announced its concern for the continued expulsion of non-Serb civilians and noted the ‘urgent need for humanitarian assistance and the various appeals made in this connection’ under the former Resolution. 
Prior to the decision to target Serbia for “regime change,” for years the Kosovar Albanian separatists were known for their anti-Serbian and anti-Orthodox terrorism. It did not take long for “the international community” to change terrorists and narco-gangsters into “freedom fighters” defending the oppressed Kosovar Albanians. 
What does the Migration Compact state? The fundamental premises are that
- humans should have the right to move across the earth without regard to barriers,
- this is a natural part of the economic globalisation process,
- international capital has a significant role to play in this, and
- the compact is part of “international law” and “global governance.”
When the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on global migration in 2017, affirming the New York Declaration on Refugees and Migrants in 2016, it did so with the explicit statement that it involves “global governance,” refers to “actionable commitments,” and formalizes what appears to be a policing role for the UN International Organization for Migration. 
On “implementation,” the Compact states that “[w]e reaffirm our commitment to international law and emphasize that the Global Compact is to be implemented in a manner that is consistent with our rights and obligations under international law.” 
The first “vision and guiding principle” of the Compact states:
This Global Compact expresses our collective commitment to improving cooperation on international migration. Migration has been part of the human experience throughout history, and we recognize that it is a source of prosperity, innovation and sustainable development in our globalized world, and that these positive impacts can be optimized by improving migration governance. 
. . . We learned that migration is a defining feature of our globalized world, connecting societies within and across all regions, making us all countries of origin, transit and destination. . . . 
This is the crux of the issue: the real aim buried among the usual moralizing. Economic globalization necessitates open borders and is a primary means of destroying the barriers to international capital, not only economically but socially, culturally, and ethnically. While the UN refers to the integrity of the states, this is more doublespeak as it also refers to states being fluid and without fixity of heritage or destiny, “making us all countries of origin, transit, and destination.” This means a globalized mass humanity without roots, able to be relocated across the world as marketing and labor needs require.
A primary “objective” is the utilization of data to promote global migration agendas. The Compact alludes to cooperation between a broad range of “stakeholders,” including trades unions, media, academia, civil society, and business in what is called a “whole of society approach.”  It seems evident that its purpose is a mobilization against the specter of “populism.”
Migrants have been used in the interests of both US geopolitics and of international capital, often working in tandem. Traditional Islam (not the Wahhabist sect backed by America’s Saudi allies) remains an obstacle to globalization. However, the US aims to detach and secularize Muslim migrant youth so that they might become part of the amorphous mass of Homo economicus.
In 2011, the Globe & Mail reported that “leadership programs” sponsored by the US Embassy in France focused on “potential leaders in Muslim groups and other minorities” via the International Visitor Leadership Program. A large proportion of the participants since 2010 have been Muslims.  Then-Secretary of State Hilary Clinton likewise commented that many of the Egyptians in the program had become active in the riots that overthrew the regime in Egypt as part of the well-orchestrated “Arab Spring.” 
Journalist Garret Martin stated that American embassies across Europe are under instruction to “court second and third generation” Muslims;  that is to say, those who have been uprooted from their traditions. These de-Islamized youth are to be the fodder of globalism. As paradoxical as it seems, the real threat by the “Great Replacement” is not from the descendants of migrants who do not assimilate into their host communities, but rather from those who are integrated into the amorphous mass of economic automatons through the use especially of American-derived trends in culture and lifestyle. Hip-hop is a particular favorite that is sponsored by the US State Department, directed at migrant youth in Europe. This is called “hip-hop diplomacy,” and decidedly not from the imagination of “far-Right conspiracy theorists.”
Mark Katz, Professor of Music at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who has served as the director of the “Next Level” project for the State Department, has written of this:
. . . Since 2001, the United States Department of State has been sending American hip hop artists abroad, and inviting international artists to the U.S., as cultural envoys. These envoys perform, teach, and collaborate for the purpose of promoting understanding, respect, and peaceful relations across cultures, languages, and national boundaries. Why would the State Department hire rappers or DJs or beatboxers? Why would hip hop artists work for the federal government? The partnership is both unlikely and fraught, but at the same time has proven to be powerful, effective, and for those who participate in these programs, often life-changing. For five years I directed the hip hop diplomacy program, Next Level; I have witnessed these life-changing moments first-hand in more than two dozen countries.
Hip hop’s appeal to the State Department is actually easy to understand. It comes down to this. Hip hop is globally beloved; the United States government is not. And hip hop is well known to be the product of young, marginalized Americans of color who insisted on being heard and seen and who reveled in their survival. As the embodiment of struggle and celebration, hip hop resonates deeply with young people around the world. It’s the perfect vehicle for promoting a more nuanced and positive image of the United States and for connecting with populations that our embassies rarely engage. . . . 
The long-term danger is not that Wahhabists are going to use fanatical Muslim youths to take over Europe but that oligarchs and globalist strategists, as referred to by one of their own, Ralph Peters in his essay “Constant Conflict,” are manipulating deracinated migrant youth to de-racialize European and other white states as part of a globalist agenda.  Whether this is called a “conspiracy theory” or the unfolding of capitalism at a certain stage of development is not as crucial as the fact that whatever one calls it, the methods and aims are the same. Hip-hop epitomizes the US as the purveyor of a cosmopolitan anti-culture. It is used in the same manner as the counterculture of the 1960s was by the CIA and other interests.
The State Department program has elements and aims of the “Rivkin Project,” named after the then-US Ambassador to France, which sought to use migrant youth to break down France’s “xenophobia.”  Shall we also say that the “Rivkin Project” was a “far-Right conspiracy theory”?
The Soros Plan
To mention George Soros in any context other than the laudatory is to invite ridicule as a “conspiracy theorist.” Nonetheless, again, what one calls his plans and aims is not as important as what those plans and aims are.
Soros has a migrant plan that it is called by him “The Soros Plan.” Soros has drafted a plan that includes the European Union taking in a million migrants from Africa and the Levant annually “for the foreseeable future,” with each given a grant of 15,000 euros. The costs involved could be met by EU borrowing due to its AAA credit rating.  Hence, international finance gains, first, a vast labor source; second, a means of destabilizing nation-states; and third, interest accrued through the funding of the program by the banks.
Another arch-plutocrat, the late Peter Sutherland, was in the forefront of open-borders advocacy for Europe. Sutherland had been Attorney General of Eire, Director General of GATT and the World Trade Organization, honorary European chairman of the Trilateral Commission, a member of the Bilderberg Group’s steering committee, on the advisory board of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a Chairman at Goldman Sachs, which is the primary corporate contributor in funding the Afro-Levantine demographic shift to Europe.  Sutherland was also United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary General for International Migration. Sutherland explained the agenda for the use of the Afro-Levantine migrants into Europe as being to break down the national-cultural consciousness of Europe such as it exists:
This will demand, first and foremost, that EU leaders overcome the forces that have so far impeded action. One obstacle is anti-migrant populism, which has intensified owing to the serious economic challenges that Europeans have faced. With far-right political parties nipping at their heels, most mainstream politicians avoid taking a stance on migration that might make them seem “soft.” 
Sutherland stated that the migrants provide labor and taxes.  Perhaps it is a “far-Right conspiracy theory” to suggest that migrant labor is used to drive the growth economy for the benefit of global capital? Further:
The 21st century is built on mobility: capital, goods, and information circulate at low cost and lightning speed. Yet, paradoxically, international migration has become more perilous. It is governed by outmoded notions about human mobility. It is hampered by inadequate policy and legal frameworks. And it is stifled by overriding security concerns. 
For the oligarchs, as Sutherland surely states plainly enough, humans should be subjected to the same processes of international mobility as “capital, goods, and information,” and “at low cost and lightning speed.” “Security concerns” and “populism” get in the way.
The “Great Replacement” & “Replacement Migration”
From at least 2001, the United Nations started referring to “Replacement Migration.” The issue prompted the UN Migration Compact.
The UN document “Replacement Migration, is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?” statistically examines the demographic trends of “developed” states. The issue is that of ageing populations due to low fertility and the increasing duration of life expectancy, and hence a looming economic crisis as a result of the demographic imbalance. The solution is to replenish the labor market with migrants, by population transfers from the developing to the developed states. The preamble to the document states:
United Nations projections indicate that over the next 50 years, the populations of virtually all countries of Europe as well as Japan will face population decline and population ageing. The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require comprehensive reassessments of many established policies and programmes, including those relating to international migration.
Focusing on these two striking and critical population trends, the report considers replacement migration for eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to offset population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates. 
The Right uses the term the “Great Replacement,” the UN uses the term “Replacement Migration”; either way, the references are to the “replacement” mainly of European indigenes by drawing on the burgeoning “Third World” population. Is that, or is it not, precisely the aim of the UN Migration Compact? If not, how is it not? If so, how have the “far Right,” the “Alt Right,” and the Identitarians “lied” and “misrepresented” the issue?
The UN document concludes (emphasis mine):
Finally, 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) appropriate ages for retirement; (b) levels, types and nature of retirement and health-care benefits for the elderly; (c) labour-force participation; (d) assessed amounts of contributions from workers and employers needed to support retirement and healthcare 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. In this context, it should be noted that immigrants to one country are emigrants from another country. As such, international migration must be seen as part of the larger globalization process taking place throughout the world, influencing the economic, political and cultural character of both sending and receiving countries. While orderly international migration can provide countries of origin with remittances and facilitate the transfer of skills and technology, it also may entail the loss of needed human resources. Similarly, international migration can provide countries of destination with needed human resources and talent, but may also give rise to social tensions. Effective international migration policies must therefore take into account the impact on both the host society and countries of origin. 
The concluding sentences refer to:
- The integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants.
- International migration . . . as part of the larger globalization process taking place throughout the world, influencing the economic, political, and cultural character of both sending and receiving countries.
- International migration [that] may give rise to social tensions.
These are all factors pointed out by the Right, yet first raised in 2001 by the UN. The problems of “orderly international migration” discussed in the 2001 document are addressed by the UN Migration Compact.
The UN document refers to problems that have supposedly hitherto been unknown to history — which is nonsense. It is more a matter that the UN “experts,” NGOs, Leftists, academics, journalists, and their oligarchic string-pullers do not have a sense of the historical. They see only “human progress,” like a tapeworm creeping along towards some utopian “end of history.” Rather, the demographic crisis in the West and Russia has been seen in prior civilizations, and the desperate answer was the same: to fill the population void with migrants. It is in this that we might discern the end of civilizations, not their traveling towards a brave new world.
Polybius (born ca. 200 BC) said of the Greeks:
In our time all Greece was visited by a dearth of children and generally a decay of population . . . and a failure of productiveness results. . . . For this evil grew upon us rapidly, and without attracting attention, by our men becoming perverted to passion of show and money and the pleasures of an idle life, and accordingly, not marrying at all, or, if they did marry, refusing to rear the children that were born, or at most one or two of a great number, for the sake of leaving them all well off or bringing them up in extravagant luxury. . . . 
The Greek elite become effete, and indeed were regarded as being “feminized” by the influences of an already decadent Persian civilization. Alexander’s answer was to expand the empire and integrate Persian corruption — “cultural enrichment” and “diversity,” as it is now called — with the aim of forming a new world order. 
In Rome, Augustus recognized the demographic catastrophe caused by the corruption of traditional Roman virtues, asking, “How can the commonwealth be preserved if we neither marry nor produce children?” He referred to the city being given up to foreigners and to liberating slaves, “chiefly for the purpose of making out of them as many citizens as possible . . .”  Tacitus remarked that despite state efforts, “childlessness prevailed.”  At the beginning of the second century, Pliny the Younger wrote that his was “an age when even one child is thought a burden preventing the rewards of childlessness.” Hierocles remarked that most people seemed to regard siring children as interfering with their lifestyles. Prostitution became so widespread it became a substitute for marriage. Homosexuality and bisexuality had become common,  as did abortion. Many women became infertile. Birth control methods were widely used.  The cities were “populated by strangers.”  How modern all this sounds.
Of Western civilization in its modern epoch of decay, Oswald Spengler wrote that “the destiny of being the last of the line is no longer felt as doom.” 
There are causes for this demographic crisis that are not in the interests of the globalists to raise. Hence, their simplistic reaction is to insist that all will be well, the growth economy can be sustained by migrant labor, and that warnings are nothing other than “far-Right conspiracy theories.” For decades the globalists have sought to fully integrate women into the work force by “liberation” from the “burden” of motherhood. Now there is a demographic crisis, and the globalist answer is “replacement migration,” as per Rome and Greece.
These are the problems that the international oligarchy and their Leftist fellow-travelers do not want discussed. Hence, the “far Right” becomes a red herring.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
  US Mission to the UN, National Statement of the United States of America on the Adoption of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration , December 7, 2018.
  Collette Devlin, “NZ Votes for UN Migration Compact after Legal Advice ,” Stuff, December 19, 2018.
  Ibid.
  Buhm Suk Baek, Economic Sanctions Against Human Rights Violations (2008), Humanitarian Intervention, Cornell Law School Inter-University Graduate Student Conference Papers.2.1.2., Paper 11.
  “How the fall of Qaddafi gave rise to Europe’s migrant crisis ,” Christian Science Monitor, April 21, 2015.
  Buhm Suk Baek, p. 31 (3.2.3), Sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
  K. R. Bolton, Babel Inc.: Multiculturalism, Globalisation & the New World Order  (London: Black House Publishing, 2013). pp. 161-173.
  UN General Assembly, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on April 6, 2017.
  Ibid., (41), p. 32.
  Ibid., (8), Our Vision and Guiding Principles.
  Ibid., (10), Common Understanding.
  Ibid., p. 4 (15).
  Anita Elash, “US accused of meddling in France’s immigration policies ,” The Globe & Mail, February 16, 2011.
  Garret Martin, “In Smart-power Shift, US now actively Cultivating Muslim Minorities in the EU,” European Affairs, April 2011.
  Ibid.
  M. Katz, “How Hip Hop and Diplomacy made an unlikely partnership ,” OUPBlog, Oxford University Press, December 4, 2019.
  K. R. Bolton, “The Rivkin Project: How Globalism uses Multiculturalism to Subvert Sovereign Nations ,” Foreign Policy Journal, March 12, 2011.
  “Google, Goldman Sachs Donate Millions to help Refugees ,” CNN, September 11, 2015.
  Peter Sutherland, “Lower the Costs and Amplifying the Benefits of Migration ,” July 4, 2014.
  Ibid.
  “Replacement Migration, Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations? ”, Population Division Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Secretariat, 2001.
  Replacement Migration, Conclusions & Implications.
  Polybius, Histories (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962), 37.9.
  Cassius Dio, Book IV, 86.
  Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome, iii, 25.
  Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 117.
  Ibid., pp. 118-121.
  Ibid., p. 156.
  Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West (London: Allen & Unwin, 1971), vol. II, pp. 103-104.