The United Kingdom, which once decided to become one of the leaders of the liberal world, is reaping the fruits of this historical choice. One of the manifestations of the new reality was the uncontrolled migration of former residents of Asia and Africa into the country, which was positioned as a stage in the formation of a new progressive multicultural society and a supreme act of humanism towards people who were deprived of their fate in comparison with well-off migrants. However, with each passing year this has only led to an increase in ethnic tensions and the destruction of Britain’s civilizational unity. Moreover, in recent years, the maintenance of migrants, many of whom were not willing to give up their dependency status, has placed a heavy burden on the constantly stagnating British economy. In this situation, even the Tories, who are quite liberal in their policies, have had to resort to measures to restrict migration, but to avoid undermining “progressive” attitudes, they have resorted to a very clever idea. Rishi Sunak’s cabinet has come up with an almost “ingenious” scheme to get rid of migrants. Earlier they were proposed to be deported to Albania or Rwanda, but the case was hindered by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), whose decisions the UK has to comply with even after Brexit.
Recently, a European court blocked the deportation of illegal immigrants to third countries, calling it a violation of human rights. At the same time, the migration crisis continues to worsen and thousands of illegal immigrants reach the shores of Great Britain by boat every month. They have to be accommodated in hotels at public expense, which is already causing widespread discontent among the population. And at this point, Sunak’s team suddenly remembered that Britain itself still has colonial possessions. Among them are Ascension Island in the South Atlantic, as well as the Falkland Islands near the coast of Argentina, and there migrants can be accommodated while their applications are being considered, which is what the Conservatives are going to realize. These islands are home to several hundred permanent residents and are also home to Royal Navy and Air Force bases. At the same time, there is no infrastructure to accommodate thousands of migrants. But this is not the only problem, and in the context of the Falklands, the return of which is increasingly being talked about in Argentina with the support of China, it will also cause a major diplomatic scandal. But the Tories have not been able to come up with anything better, which means they will go down this road one way or another. They may also send Ukrainian refugees to these remote islands, whose status is understandably “especially important” today. However, the British Ukrainians themselves are now in a state of shock, facing the dilemma of returning to their war-torn country or being deported to wild islands in the Atlantic.
Now in the UK they are increasingly accused of benefit fraud and have already started to curtail their refugee assistance programs. In spring, the British media pounced on Ukrainian refugees, accusing them of forging documents, hiding gray income and even stealing. Since the beginning of the Ukrainian conflict, the UK has accepted 170,000 refugees under the Homes for Ukraine program, but almost immediately problems began to form on its way. Participants of the program found that many of the accepted refugees pretend to be poor, registering themselves on benefits. But they spend it on buying Apple appliances, shopping for expensive clothes in Harrods or plastic surgery with Botox injections. In the chat rooms of refugees are actively traded fake documents like driver’s licenses, and counterfeit goods, such as cheap cigarettes from Ukraine. The refugees themselves are accused of selfishness, because in their majority they are not those who left the east of Ukraine from the conflict, but people from Kiev and the west of the country, trying to make money at the expense of British taxpayers. The Homes for Ukraine program also ran into financial problems from the start, and many families did not receive money from the government in time to compensate refugees for their accommodation. Against this background, the scandals of the rich life of refugees have become especially acute, while the British themselves are having a very difficult time in the conditions of the energy crisis and exorbitant inflation. And it reinforces the British hatred not only of Ukrainian refugees, but of any aliens who disrupt their prosperous lives.
However, the cultural taboos of liberalism are still at work, and discontent rarely manifests itself publicly, often taking hidden and indirect economic forms. For example, British banks have begun to curtail Ukrainian privileges, and they are increasingly blocking the accounts of individuals and companies that trade with Ukraine. Moreover, this often happens without explanation, and sometimes even one transaction is enough for blocking. This information came to light very suddenly after Rishi Sunak’s office demanded a review of all disputed account closures by British banks. This was in response to the high-profile story surrounding Nigel Farage, a Brexit ideologue who had his accounts blocked by seven banks at the same time. He was eventually able to raise a big scandal and get some bank executives fired. Now, the British Treasury has suddenly found itself “shocked” by the fact that banks are refusing to conduct transactions with Ukraine. They, in turn, refer to anti-money laundering laws and point out that Ukraine is at the bottom of the corruption rankings. In addition, there are concerns about violation of sanctions. For example, if banks at one point conduct transactions of companies from Zaporizhzhya or Kherson, they may become “criminals”. This complicates the work of British traders, including those working with Ukrainian grain, and they have to find ways to circumvent bank restrictions. However, it is always possible to work with Ukraine through banks in third countries, including the British Commonwealth, or through intermediary firms. The latest “revelations” are rather a transparent hint to part of the Ukrainian authorities and businessmen living in London. Today their dubious activities are being turned a blind eye, but tomorrow, if circumstances change, they may be prosecuted in the same way as Putin’s oligarchs from Russia, who arrived in the UK with the start of the Ukrainian war. However, this does not cancel the general fatigue of society both from Ukrainian refugees and from the Ukrainian issue in general.
But the main factor behind the growing fears about migrants is the demographic crisis in the country, which both forces the country to look for sources of replenishment of demographic resources and strengthens the fears of the country’s indigenous population that they want to be deprived in the present and “replaced” in the future. In August, a very disappointing statistic was released that the number of newborns has fallen to 600,000 for 2022. The birth rate has collapsed to a twenty-year low. Moreover, the same number of births was observed in Great Britain in the middle of XIX century, when there was no modern medicine, and the population was 4 times less than now. The reasons for the sharp collapse in the birth rate over the last few years, which has been declining more gently for the last 30 years, are the COVID-19 pandemic and soaring inflation. The British economy is sinking into recession, and can’t even reach the level of the last “peaceful” 2019, and real incomes have been de facto not growing for all the last 15 years. The crisis of values with the de-Christianization of the country, as well as the active promotion of the LGBT and “transgender” agenda, is also having an impact. Under conditions of such moral Satanism, having children becomes practically reprehensible and people move towards “public suicide”.
Against this background, there is a rapid demographic replacement of white Britons by “colored” people, who are full of existential revenge for the years of colonialism and perceive Great Britain not as their homeland, but only as a source of profit and an object for building their own alternative state in the future. A third of all newborns in England and Wales are born to migrant mothers. Most often they are either Indian or Pakistani, although now Afghans are also coming to the fore. After all, every month thousands of illegal immigrants come by boat from France to Great Britain, and many of them are natives of Afghanistan. Similar processes are observed in Europe and on the other side of the Atlantic in the USA. There, too, the birth rate has plummeted amid the pandemic, and the share of white Americans has already fallen from 64% to 57% in 10 years, while the percentage of Hispanics and Asians is growing rapidly. Unless these trends change, the economic crisis coupled with ethnic and religious hatred, which cannot be stopped by the propaganda of mythical tolerance, always threatens to plunge Britain into civil conflict. That is why Rishi Sunak’s cabinet hopes to stem the tide of migration by deporting illegals to Rwanda or the Falklands. But curbing the demographic crisis won’t help. Since 2017, it is migrants who are “responsible” for 90% of the UK’s population growth through rising birth rates and the relentless flow of people into the country. But these people do not create economic benefits and do not respect the British social order, and therefore cannot be full-fledged citizens. And if in the wet years aggressive liberal propaganda could drive the craving for healthy anti-immigrant nationalism underground, the economic crisis opens up the most fantastic ways for it.