Ekeroth: “The Population Replacement That Doesn’t Exist”

There is no population replacement. We’ve been told this for years. To claim otherwise is labeled as conspiratorial, far-right, and probably some form of racism. Yet, that is precisely what we are seeing, everywhere and all the time.

In Samnytt, we can now read that Khan is expected to surpass Smith as the most common surname among newborns in England and Wales as early as 2027. In 1996, all of the ten most common surnames among newborns were of British origin. Today, that number is three.

Over the past 30 years, the number of newborns with the surname Smith has decreased by 44 percent, while Khan has more than doubled. Additionally, Muhammad has become the most common boy’s name in England and Wales, without even counting the alternative spellings Mohammed and Mohammad.

At the same time, the number of children born to British-born women is decreasing, while foreign-born mothers account for an ever-increasing share of births. The proportion of residents with Asian ethnicity, according to the British census categories, has also more than doubled between 2001 and 2021.

This is therefore neither a mysterious nor inexplicable development. With large-scale immigration over several decades and differences in birth rates, the demographic change is a highly predictable consequence. It hardly requires an advanced mathematical model to understand where this development leads.

The strange thing isn’t really that this is happening. The strange thing is that the very political and media establishment that for years defended and encouraged mass immigration simultaneously becomes almost hysterical whenever someone describes its demographic consequences.

Conspiracy Theory or Positive Diversity?

So what exactly is being denied? That the composition of the population is changing? That the proportion of the original population is decreasing? That immigration and births are changing who will make up the country’s future population?

All of this can be demonstrated with public statistics. Yet merely stating the fact seems to be more controversial than the policies causing the changes. Apparently, it is acceptable through political decisions to fundamentally alter the composition of a country’s population. You simply must not call it population replacement.

It’s a rather strange linguistic convention. And perhaps even stranger is that those most eager to deny the development are often the same people applauding it and calling it a triumph for diversity.

So which is it really? A conspiracy theory that doesn’t exist, or a social development we are expected to celebrate?