'Debunking the Great Replacement Theory' by Ryan Soames—guest blogger

The “Great Replacement” theory alleges that governments or shadowy elites are deliberately engineering the decline of white, European-descended populations through immigration and differential birth rates. Though it has found a foothold in political rhetoric, the claim is baseless—and its consequences are deeply corrosive. In recent years, some GB News commentators and Reform UK supporters have also entertained the theory obliquely, speaking of “demographic change” or “cultural erosion” in ways that echo the language of the so-called “Great Replacement”.

The concept itself can be traced to the French writer Renaud Camus, who popularised the phrase in 2011. Since then, it has circulated widely among far-right networks in Europe and North America, where it has been adopted as a rallying cry for nativist and exclusionary politics. More worryingly, it has inspired acts of terrorism, including the Christchurch mosque shootings in 2019 and the Buffalo supermarket attack in 2022. In each case, perpetrators cited the theory explicitly, presenting ordinary demographic trends as proof of an existential plot.

Supporters of the theory often argue that demographic change has been made to appear “organic” but is, in fact, carefully orchestrated. This claim, however, does not stand up to scrutiny. Migration patterns follow clear economic, political and social drivers. People move to seek employment, safety, or opportunity; conflicts, natural disasters and climate change displace populations; and policy decisions on asylum or labour migration respond to labour shortages and humanitarian obligations. These dynamics are well-documented, transparent and observable—not evidence of a secretive, coordinated plan. Interpreting ordinary social processes as a deliberate plot is a misreading of cause and effect, driven by fear rather than fact.

Concrete data further dismantles the theory. The UK's population is projected to grow by 4.9 million (7.3%) over the decade from mid-2022 to mid-2032, with net migration accounting for the entire increase. In 2024, net migration was estimated at 431,000, a sharp decline from the unusually high levels in 2022 and 2023. However, it remained higher than levels seen during the 2010s, when the figure typically fluctuated between 200,000 and 300,000. Post-Brexit, net migration has been driven by non-EU immigration. In 2024, 69% of non-EU immigration was for work and study purposes. These figures reflect the UK's evolving immigration patterns, influenced by policy changes and global events, rather than a coordinated effort to alter the demographic makeup of the population.

Britain itself has long been shaped by migration, from medieval arrivals to the Huguenot refugees of the seventeenth century, the Caribbean and South Asian communities who helped rebuild after the Second World War and more recent flows from Eastern Europe. These are recurring historical patterns, not unprecedented interventions. Migrant communities also make substantial contributions to the UK’s economy, public services and social life, enriching culture rather than erasing it. National identity is not a static artefact but an evolving tapestry.

The danger of “replacement” rhetoric lies in its capacity to distort perception and redirect anger. By framing migration as an intentional plot, the theory fosters scapegoating, fuels xenophobia and distracts from real policy challenges such as housing, wages, or public service provision. In doing so, it provides a simplistic narrative for complex societal issues, offering fear but no solutions.

At its heart, the Great Replacement is a myth: a conspiracy theory that confuses demographic reality with paranoia. Migration and demographic change are not evidence of orchestrated decline but part of ongoing historical processes. Acknowledging this truth is essential to resisting divisive politics and maintaining a society grounded in fact rather than fear.

‘Think Reform UK Only Targets “Illegal” Immigrants? Think Again’ by Adam McCulloch—guest blogger

Reform UK often frames its immigration stance as targeting only “illegal” immigrants. For voters concerned about law and order or border control, this can seem straightforward. But for ethnic minorities who might be considering support for the party, the reality is far more complicated, and potentially alarming.

While the party might present itself as focused only on undocumented migrants, history and political logic suggest that measures aimed at controlling immigration rarely stop at the border. Once in power, parties with nationalist or anti-immigrant platforms often move to introduce policies that affect settled migrants, naturalised citizens, and even their UK-born children, albeit indirectly.

Naturalised citizens in the UK enjoy the same legal protections as those born in the country. Deporting them or their children would face nearly insurmountable legal barriers, including human rights protections and anti-discrimination laws. So, a Reform UK government would likely avoid outright repatriation. But legal impossibility doesn’t mean political neutrality.

Even without formal deportations, governments can create systemic pressures that disproportionately affect migrant communities, such as:

Tighter Citizenship Rules: By raising language requirements, residency periods or fees, the party could make it harder for future generations of migrants to gain full rights.

Family Reunification Restrictions: Limiting visas for spouses or relatives forces existing families to choose between separation or emigration.

Economic and Social Measures: Adjusting benefits, housing eligibility or public services in ways that disproportionately impact migrant communities can create indirect pressure to leave.

Social and Political Rhetoric: Constant messaging questioning loyalty or “fit” can foster hostility, encouraging self-deportation.

Supporting Reform UK solely because of its stance on undocumented immigrants carries hidden risks. Policies that seem limited in scope can evolve into broader, systemic pressures on naturalised citizens and their families. For ethnic minorities, the “deport illegal immigrants only” message may be far from the end of the story.

In politics, it’s not just the laws on the books that matter—it’s the climate they create. And the climate a nationalist government can foster may affect you, even if you are legally settled in the UK.

'The Irony of MAGA’s War on the New World Order' by Ryan Soames—guest blogger

The “New World Order” (NWO) conspiracy theory has long been a narrative framework for groups sceptical of globalisation, supranational governance and perceived elite manipulation of democratic societies. While the theory has spread across ideological lines, it has been most closely associated with the American far right, particularly militia movements and populist conservative networks.

What is noticeable, however, is the way in which this rhetoric has been absorbed into the political identity of Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement. Trump and his supporters frequently invoke the language of “globalists”, “deep state actors” and “elitist cabals”, portraying the political struggle as one of national sovereignty and popular democracy against unaccountable transnational power. Yet the practical effect of Trump’s politics has often been to erode democratic institutions while simultaneously strengthening the position of corporate and technological elites.

The NWO narrative warns against centralised, authoritarian control that overrides democratic governance. Trump’s actions in office, however, consistently undermine institutional checks on executive power. From attempts to delegitimise electoral outcomes in 2020 to attacks on judicial independence and the normalisation of political violence, Trump’s political project has weakened precisely those safeguards designed to prevent authoritarian capture.

This reveals a fundamental irony: a movement ostensibly dedicated to resisting authoritarianism has embraced a leader whose methods exemplify it.

A second irony lies in the movement’s relationship to economic elites. Trump’s administration has given significant tax cuts to the wealthy, pursued deregulation favourable to large corporations and cultivated links with powerful technology figures such as Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. Far from dismantling elite dominance, these policies entrenched it.

In this respect, MAGA’s anti-globalist populism functions less as a challenge to oligarchic power than as its legitimisation, reframed in nationalist rather than cosmopolitan terms.

MAGA’s nationalist framing (emphasising borders, cultural homogeneity and sovereignty) functions as a diversionary strategy. It directs popular discontent toward marginalised groups (immigrants, minorities and “woke” institutions) rather than toward structural concentrations of wealth and power. This redirection of grievance politics enables elite consolidation under the guise of defending “the people”.

The cult of personality surrounding Trump underscores another paradox. Conspiracy narratives often warn of demagogues who mobilise mass loyalty to centralise power. Yet within the MAGA movement, Trump himself occupies precisely this role, presented as the singular figure capable of defending America from “globalist” control.

The appropriation of New World Order rhetoric by the Trump’s supporters illustrates a paradox of modern populism. A narrative originally constructed to resist authoritarian centralisation and elite domination has been reconfigured into an instrument that enables both. The outcome is an inversion of its original intent: the supposed resistance to a global elite now serves to legitimate authoritarian governance and the consolidation of oligarchic power at home.