The United Nations’ Replacement Migration Report Exposed

You’d be aware that the President of Loveworld Incorporated had exposed the diabolical great replacement agenda being orchestrated by various nations against their people. Even here on The War Room, we have spoken extensively about this agenda, including how it is often ignored by those who merely dismiss it as a so-called “ultra-right wing conspiracy theory”; and yet the state of ridiculous migration policies indicates otherwise. However, it turns out that the great replacement agenda is far from being the figment of the right’s imagination, it is ALSO actually a 177-page UN report. We ought to address the contention surrounding the great replacement agenda, looking at the UN Report on Migration Replacement.

ADDRESSING THE UNITED NATION’S REPLACEMENT MIGRATION REPORT

We look at the intersection between the great replacement agenda and the UN’s report on replacement migration. To begin with, the United Nations Population Division’s 2001 report, titled: “Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?”, it is said to investigate whether international migration can counteract population decline and ageing in regions with below-replacement fertility rates. Focusing on eight low-fertility countries—namely: France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States—and also two regional aggregates (being Europe and the European Union), the study uses demographic projections from the 1998 Revision of the World Population Prospects. It employs a cohort-component method to forecast trends from 1995 to 2050, assuming medium-variant fertility (stabilizing below 2.1 children per woman), and also assumes improving mortality, and varying migration levels. 

Additionally, the report defines “replacement migration” as the net international inflows needed to offset natural population decrease (which is measured looking at births minus deaths) and also to maintain specific demographic targets, such as total population size, working-age population (defined as ages 15 – 64), or the potential support ratio (which is the ratio of those who are deemed to be working-age to elderly, and consists of ages 65+).

Now, in this study, immigrants are modeled with an age-sex distribution averaged from major receiving countries like Australia, Canada, and the U.S., assuming they adopt host-country fertility and mortality rates upon arrival (meaning they live and start families in a similar fashion to the people in the receiving countries). But, ultimately, the report underscores the inevitability of population decline and ageing without intervention, in countries of focus like Italy, the US, the UK, and the others mentioned earlier.

But, what is curious about this study is that it hinges upon the concerns that conservatives have highlighted while the left dismisses it as conspiracy or an immaterial change to demographics. Clearly, even the people at the UN were aware that there were population decreases in a significant number of migrant receiving countries, hence they created a report that explored using migration to replace those aging populations. And so, the first thing that the existence of this report categorically addresses is that: the replacement of indigenous or naturalised citizens CANNOT be some abstract conspiracy if an international organisation like the UN, has engaged plans to use replacement migration to modify the demographics of nations. Literally, with the Replacement Migration report title, all the UN’s population division did was change the wording from “great replacement” to the more euphemistic “replacement migration”.

Then, the second thing that is exposed by the existence of this migration report is that Trump was absolutely right when he expressed the culpability of the UN in the state of migration policy in many recipient nations (local governments not excluded). The UN has essentially funded massive migration efforts that are changing the cultures and destabilising host countries in Europe and the US. In light of this, during his address at the UN in September, Trump reminded the room that America was no longer being run by people who bowed to international pressure. He touted something they never thought they’d hear on the UN floor: which is that America’s southern border is closed. And he said it quite loud and clear; stating that (quote): “On our southern border we have successfully repelled a colossal invasion and for the last four months, four months in a row, the number of illegal aliens admitted and entering our country has been zero.”

President Trump further explained why it happened and what the new policy is. He stated that, (quote): “They just poured into our country with the ridiculous open border policy of the Biden administration. Our message is very simple. If you come illegally into the United States, you are going to jail or you are going back to where you came from or perhaps even further than that.” And by the way, it was not just about America. Trump turned to thank El Salvador for their help in jailing criminal aliens we’ve deported—and urged other countries to do the same.

Meanwhile, his warning that uncontrolled borders “ruin countries” resonates with European states grappling with migrant surges. Data from Eurostat and internal EU debates show mounting pressure on welfare systems, security, and identity. Canada itself has had to recalibrate its immigration levels after public services were strained — proving his point that borders cannot be ignored.

REPLACEMENT IMMIGRATION IS NOT ABOUT RESPONDING TO DEMOGRAPHIC CONCERNS

But, the UN’s report of Migration Replacement is also framed in a very disingenuous way: it is essentially framed as a report that is trying to respond in earnest in a manner that offsets what it claims is NATURAL population decrease, while maintaining specific demographic targets. Framing population decline even as early as 2001 as a natural decrease is an immediate red flag. The decline of indigenous (or even naturalised) citizens is anything but natural.

Instead, what we have seen in the status quo is a combination of efforts to decrease these populations. First, is this Malthusian view of the world population that was popularised by the Club of Rome, and has become a significant influence in UN policy. In more detail, in 1974, the Club of Rome, proposed a provocative geopolitical framework dividing the world into ten regional blocs, now widely referred to as the “10 Kingdoms.” This geopolitical framework was said to be born from concerns over

overpopulation, environmental degradation, and economic instability, and allegedly sought to address humanity’s growing crises through regional cooperation and sustainable governance.

HOWEVER, the 10 Kingdoms map has since become a focal point for diabolical agendas. While some view it as a rational strategy for managing global complexity, others have raised that it is a blueprint for authoritarian control. And legitimately so; as the 10 Kingdoms framework is only one part of the authoritative ambitions of the Club of Rome. They also released a report called ‘The Limits to Growth’, in which they detailed that there would be a societal collapse caused by a gap between resource availability and an increased population – which is the typical malthusian-inspired perspective of the population numbers that has fueled even climate change alarmism, especially as it relates to anthropogenic factors. This Malthusian view, inspired by the Limits to Growth report from the Club of Rome, has influenced population-related decisions made by figures in leadership in the UN, and even the policy of organisations like the EU (which is likely why Europe in particular has been experiencing concerns over its decreasing population.

The second point proving that the UN’s replacement migration report is not responding to NATURAL population decline is how population decline worsened after the mass COVID vaccination campaign. You’d recall that we analysed the work of a journalist from the Czech Republic (being Tomas Furst), in which he acquired a government database on the number of newborns in each month in the Czech Republic, broken down by age and vaccination status of the mother. The data that Mr Furst worked with contains the number of births per month between January 2021 and December 2023 given by women (aged 18-39) who were vaccinated, in other words those who had received at least one Covid vaccine dose by the date of delivery, and by women who were unvaccinated, meaning they had not received ANY dose of any Covid vaccine by the date of delivery. 

Furthermore, the numbers of births per month by women vaccinated by one or more doses during pregnancy were provided. This enabled Tomas Furst and his team to estimate the number of women who were vaccinated before conception. They further used open data on the Czech population structure by age, and open data on Covid vaccination by day, sex, and age. Then, combining these datasets, they were able to estimate the rates of successful conceptions (meaning conceptions that led to births nine months later) by preconception vaccination status of the mother.

First, the dataset revealed that vaccinated women conceived about a third fewer children than would be expected from their share of the population. Unvaccinated women conceived at about the same rate as all women before the pandemic. Importantly, this tells us that a strong association between Covid vaccination status and successful conceptions has been established. Secondly, the dataset revealed that In the second half of 2021, there was a peak in the rate of conceptions of the UNvaccinated (and a corresponding trough in the vaccinated). This points to rather intelligent behaviour of Czech women, who – contrary to the official advice – probably avoided vaccination if they wanted to get pregnant. This concentrated the pregnancies in the unvaccinated group and produced the peak. 

Now that the association between Covid-19 vaccination and lower rates of conception has been established, the one important question looms: Is this association causal? In other words, did the Covid-19 vaccines really prevent women from getting pregnant? Well, the mainstream media and their talking heads brush off these findings and say that the difference is easily explained by confounding: more specifically, they state that the vaccinated tend to be older, more educated, city-dwelling, and more climate change aware, woke persons, among other ultra-liberal considerations. But, that all may well be factually accurate, but in early 2022, the TFR of the whole population dropped sharply and has been decreasing ever since. 

THEREFORE, something must have happened in the spring of 2021. Had the population of women just spontaneously separated into two groups – one being those who wanted kids and did NOT want the jab, and the other being the city dwellers who did NOT want children and wanted the jab – well, then the fertility rate of the UNvaccinated would indeed be much higher than that of the vaccinated. In that respect, such a selection bias could explain the observed pattern. HOWEVER, had this been true, the TFR of the whole population would have remained constant. But (of course) this is not what happened. Instead, the TFR of the whole population jumped down in January 2022 and has been decreasing ever since in the Czech Republic.

And so, if one wants to argue that a “factor X” is responsible for the drop in fertility, one will have to explain (1) firstly why the factor affected only the vaccinated, and (2) secondly why it started affecting them at about the time of vaccination. And based on the data from Czech journalist Tomas Furst, it appears that Factor X is the covid vaccine. We also recently discussed the ramifications of the Covid vaccine here on ‘The War Room’, including a study (which focused on approximately 1.3 million women), by Manniche at al, which found that COVID-19 vaccinated women had approximately 33% fewer successful pregnancies than unvaccinated women. There is also the finding in the Pfizer Papers amalgamated by Dr Noami Wolf, which show that Pfizer targeted the reproductive function of the human body, they also knew that they were blocking women’s ovaries with lipid nanoparticles, and that the lipid nanoparticles traverse the placenta.

THE GREAT REPLACEMENT = THE GREAT ENSLAVEMENT

BUT, the great replacement agenda does not stop with the depopulation agenda. This is also about creating a class of beings that are easy to control. You’d recall that imperialism and racist ideologies for the longest time taught caucasian people of their inherent superiority, granted on misguided lines. For instance, various aspects of society were formed and curated to entrench the idea of a ruling white race that was supposed to be seen as superior on the basis of the colour of their skin and entitlement to rulership. And so, for example, the education of caucasians differed significantly to that of people in colonised nations (which were often people of colour, with the exception of Ireland, which was the first to bear the brunt of the British Empire). The labour of caucasians also differed to that of people of colour, especially with the institutionalisation of slavery. All of this is to say that caucasians were taught superiority and entitlements to the protection of this superiority.

Inevitably, this became a difficult demographic to control – especially in matters affecting individual and some collective rights. We saw this with the French Revolution, in which the French overthrew a monarchy they perceived to be ignorant of their suffering in addition to causing it. We saw this with the American Revolution, which was an insurrection carried out by 13 of Great Britain’s North American colonies resulting in the political independence of the colonies, and the formation of the United States of America. And so, the globalists figured that a group that is difficult to control is easier to kill off and replace. The replacement is also intentionally focused around immigrants, as far as the great replacement is concerned. Often immigrants (especially those who enter illegally) are dependent on the state for basic necessities – including providing them with shelter and food, like we see in the US and Ireland. And people who are dependent are easy to control; this is a power play that has well been explored through so-called humanitarian aid and foreign direct investment in less developed African and Asian countries.

But, ultimately, globalists like Bill Gates, have stated explicitly that people who are not “useful” to the globalist agenda ought to be replaced.

You heard right: Biden really said that fewer than 50% of people in America will be “white European stock”; almost as if he’s referring to a race of cattle – it is utterly concerning how dehumanising the propagators of the great replacement agenda are.

THE SENSATIONALISATION OF ABORTION PROVES POPULATION DECLINE IS NOT NATURAL

Then there is also the issue of abortion; and here, let’s talk about the controversial and frankly grim reality of late term abortion, because it turns out that most people who advocate for abortion, ignore how it has contributed to the depopulation agenda. However, late term abortions highlighted this issue: for the longest time, the left lied about late term abortions being an anomaly that rarely takes place; and so when it became apparent that they were an almost casual affair, many realised that abortion had concerning realities.

Now, for some context, the second trimester starts around week 14 of pregnancy and lasts through about the end of week 27, or months 4 to 6 of pregnancy. During this time, the baby undergoes several changes, including: the fact that their organs become fully developed; the baby can start to hear and swallow; small hairs become noticeable; the baby begins to move around and develops sleeping and waking cycles; AND facial features align, fingers and toes become well-defined as well. This, of course, may already be well known to many people, but it is important to emphasise because people who support (especially) no restriction to abortion tend to be dismissive of just how well developed the baby is in the mother’s womb during this period. And so, when abortions take place from (particularly) week 20 and above, it is generally regarded as a late-term abortion.

However, Democrats politicians like Pete Buttigiege and supporters claim that calling abortions “late-term” is an effective strategy for politicians and anti-abortion activists because “it shifts the focus of abortion to make it seem like it’s happening at later stages, while that is not true.” The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also chimed in and claimed that just over 1% of all abortions in the US are performed after 21 weeks gestation, which is six weeks before the end of the second trimester. 

However, these remarks do not refute the support for the overturning of Roe v. Wade in the broader abortion debate. Irrespective of the claim minute frequency of late term abortions, states ought to be given the right to decide abortion laws to reflect the people’s vote, as opposed to allowing the federal government to dictate to all states what abortion laws should be – with the specific intent to coerce especially conservative states to make ALL abortion legal.

Second, this tells us that Democrats are not actually concerned about protecting mothers in danger; what they want is a right to abortion period, which entitles a mother to choose to have an abortion whenever she desires and just because she can. It is not an argument about health, safety or wellbeing, but rather one based on frivolous feminist ideals that especially try to cancel the agency of the father in making decisions about the child’s life, all while dehumanising unborn babies. Additionally, this tells us that: often the pro-abortion views underestimate how much it contributes to population decline.

For instance, one of the actual big “inequities” facing black Americans is that they make up only 13 percent of the US population, yet account for about 40 percent of all abortions. However, thankfully, many – especially in the Body of Christ have been fighting against this anomaly for years. For instance, 6 years ago when PP sought to open a new branch in Charlotte, North Carolina, Church leaders protested the effort, also raising awareness about the number of abortions being conducted in African American neighbourhoods. 

THE DISMISSAL OF THE GREAT REPLACEMENT AGENDA IS BLATANT IGNORANCE OF THE STATUS QUO

Let’s proceed to address the dismissal of the great replacement agenda. For some context and recapitulation, you’d recall that we previously discussed that the great replacement agenda refers to the intentional goal of elites to replace ethnic European populations with demographically and culturally different groups through mass migration, as was popularised by French novelist and political activist, Renaud Camus. He argued that since the 1970s, Muslim immigrants in France have shown disdain for French society and have been intent on destroying the country’s cultural identity and ultimately replacing its white Christian population.

The great replacement theory in the United States and other Western countries whose populations are mostly white, is often dismissed as a far-right conspiracy theory alleging that left-leaning domestic or international elites are attempting to replace white citizens with nonwhite immigrants. Those dismissive of the theory further state that the immigrants’ increased presence in “white countries”, in combination with their higher birth rates as compared with those of whites, will enable new nonwhite majorities in those countries to take control of national political and economic institutions, to dilute or destroy their host countries’ distinctive cultures and societies, and eventually to eliminate the host countries’ white populations.

Part of the reason for this reductionist interpretation of the great replacement agenda is how it is linked to Hitler and Nazi ideals. Hitler created a FALSE problem in Germany, in which he claimed that Jews wanted to eliminate the German population, and further replace the European population. HOWEVER, those who make the claim that the great replacement theory is inherently the same as Hitler’s interpretations or articulations of it, are not adequately considering that Hitler lied to the German society; he fabricated that problem of a Jewish takeover to legitimate a centralisation of power and implement a Nazi government. To Hitler, his articulation of the great replacement theory was a means to an evil end (being the holocaust); and it was not a sincere prescription of an observable problem in society.

And so, let me state categorically that to claim that the great replacement theory is a Nazi-inspired or white supremasist theory is a reductionist and incorrect understanding of the great replacement theory. That it was manipulated by the likes of Hitler does not make it inherently wrong or bad, in the same way that money is not an inherent evil because people use it to execute sincere plans. Furthermore, the great replacement theory is not a mere far right or white supremesist theory; it is even NOT primarily exclusive to the white race or predominantly caucasian nations. At its core, the great replacement theory problematises the deliberate editing of a population demographic with foreign nationals, such that foreign nationals surpass the indigenous population in a nation, along with their culture. That said, this theory has become most prevalent in western nations including the US and Europe through implausible policies in response towards illegal immigration.

Secondly, the dismissal of the great replacement agenda is also utterly insufficient when compared to developments in the status quo. This is to say that critics of the Great Replacement theory omit that the demographics of nations affected by it are changing. For instance, the United States population has actually changed – at numerical levels greater than at any time in American history. In fact, since President Biden’s election, growth in the foreign-born population of the United States has been unprecedented, increasing by 6.6 million in just 39 months. Furthermore, a May 2024 Report produced by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) explains, “The foreign-born population increased 5.1 million from March 2022 to March 2024…the numerical increase in the last two years is larger than in any two-year period in American history.

Therefore, the great replacement theory is not a mere discussion of Nazi-inspired white supremacists or xenophobia – especially considering that western nations have allowed immigrants into the nations for centuries. The problem then is when, firstly, the government conducts immigration in a manner that opposes sensible immigration laws and in a manner that undermines its primary obligation to its citizens; and also when the government is using immigrants in a sinister plot to change the demographic in its nation. Let’s kindly visit an articulation of the great replacement agenda from a native of the Netherlands, Eva Vlaardingerbroek, because the Netherlands has been reported as ground zero of this agenda.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso